Preamble

The House met at hall-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Flint Office

Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the area covered by the boundaries of his Department's office in Flint.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): A review of the boundaries in this area is planned for September.

Mr. Raffan: As part of the review, and to assist claimants from the more rural areas of my constituency, will my hon. Friend give serious consideration to bringing the communities of Brynford, Cilcain and Mannerch under the Department's Flint office, as they are much closer to Flint than they are to Rhyl, which is the office under which they now come? Will my hon. Friend similarly reassess the communities of Leeswood and Pontblyddyn, which now come under the Wrexham DSS office?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about these matters because he has been in touch with me. I assure him that the review will take particular account of the views that he has expressed.

Disability Benefits

Mr. Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, in the light of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report, "Benefits for Disabled People: A Strategy for Change" he has any plans to increase spending on disability benefits.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We have already provided for an increase in spending on the sick and disabled in real terms of £1·9 billion by 1991–92. This is a real increase in expenditure of nearly 25 per cent. When we assess the implications of the outcome of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' surveys of disability we shall give careful consideration to the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee and other representations. However, it is too soon to say how this will affect existing expenditure plans.

Mr. Hannam: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that most disabled people fall into the lowest income groups and that the sharply increased spending which he quoted is largely due to the increased numbers drawing benefit? Will he take into account in the proposed review of the benefits system the extra costs that the disabled face in their normal day-to-day living and ensure that increased resources are made available?

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend and the entire House will be glad that there is increased take-up, especially of the best-targeted benefits for the disabled. When we have all the results of the OPCS surveys, and when various organisations have had a chance to comment on them, we shall want to examine all the evidence, including the general situation of disabled people and the extra costs that they bear, to ascertain whether the benefit system deals with those needs as effectively as possible.

Mr. Corbyn: In his review of these matters will the Minister let the House know when he expects to be able to announce that he will make attendance allowance available to the parents of children under the age of two who are severely disabled? Those parents clearly suffer badly because of the need for extra care for their children. No extra benefit is currently available to them under the


social security system. The Minister promised when the recent Social Security Bill was being examined in Committee that with the outcome of the OPCS report he would make a statement about future benefits.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman has raised one of a small number of subjects to which we are giving urgent attention. We must await the arrival of the last of the OPCS reports before we can come to a conclusion on the priority to be accorded to various matters. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we are considering the matter with urgency and sympathy.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister not ashamed of his recent complaint that, under supplementary benefit, people with AIDS received some double provision for diet since, as he must know, doctors are recommending diets costing over £30 a week for which many now receive no extra help at all? Will he accept that his inaction is life threatening? At the very least, will he make the disability premium available without the six-month delay? Finally, what is his response to the Disablement Income Group's current finding that about 50 per cent. of attendance allowance claimants find objection to some aspect of the medical examination?

Mr. Scott: What I said was true. Within the basic system of supplementary benefit and income support there is provision for a normal diet, and there are enhanced dietary payments. By the time that we got rid of additional requirements we introduced the disability premium at a level of £13·40 a week, if I recall correctly, and that will cover the majority of extra diets. All these matters, including the right hon. Gentleman's second point, will be appropriate to to be considered when we examine the findings of the OPCS reports.

Poverty

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the extent of poverty in the United Kingdom.

Mr Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the extent of poverty in the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): Like Ministers in previous Governments, I reject the concept of a poverty line. I share the view of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Services that is is absurd to claim that a third of the population lives in poverty.
The term "poverty" is deliberately being confused with income inequality and those who claim that the poor are getting poorer ignore improvements in living standards and real income growth for people at all income levels since 1979. Perverse statistical definitions of poverty do not help to identify individuals and families in genuine need.

Mr. Smith: Did not the right hon. Gentleman contemptuously dismiss other definitions of poverty in his end-of-the-line poverty speech, and has he not done so again today? Does he at least owe it to the poor and to this House to state his definition of poverty? How many poor people does he believe there are in Britain today?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman obviously had considerable difficulty in hearing. I did not—nor did I today—dismiss, define or even seek to define poverty. Nor has anyone who has had the responsibility of Government. I sought to dismiss the absurd statistical definition described as the poverty line. As I said, that dismissal was shared by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Services, although it is not shared by the Labour party.
What I sought to do in that speech, and what I seek to do in Government, is to help those who can be identified as being in need. That is why we are spending a record amount of money on social security.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there has been a growing gap between the very richest and the very poorest in our society since 1979? Does he disown responsibility for that, or is he merely indifferent to it?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is beginning to accept the fact that we are debating and discussing, with all sections of the population—all the deciles—improving their lot over the past 10 years and examining the relative position between them. We can then begin to discuss matters on a more rational basis. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt wish to know how the Government, thanks to their economic success, have helped the poorest far better than did the previous failed Labour Government with their miserable performance.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although, under this Government, pensioners have had the largest-ever increase in their living standards, many pensioners are in difficulty because they do not regard the state pension as a top-up? Will he consider ways to help that group? It would not be a major strain on the state as the group comprises people who cannot take advantage of the economic miracles to which my right hon. Friend rightly referred.

Mr. Moore: As my hon. Friend said in Select Committee, he recognises that the Government are trying to deal with precisely the problems that he mentioned. For example, this autumn the Government will go beyond the 16 per cent.— 1·6 million pensioners—who are already on income support with the special pensioner package to help 2·6 million pensioners. That is an effort to help those least able to help themselves who have not benefited by quite as much as the remainder of the pensioner population.

Mr. David Nicholson: Is not one advantage that has flowed from my right hon. Friend's speech on poverty some weeks ago the sensible, realistic and constructive debate in the country about the needs of various groups? The debate has been contributed to by, among others, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in an article in The Sunday Times. What groups has my right hon. Friend identified as requiring further attention and what he is proposing to do to help them?

Mr. Moore: I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to the constructive debate in the country. All the editorials in the major press had identified the absurdity of a statistical definition before the Labour party introduced its review, in which it confirmed its attachment to that absurdity.
Two sections of the population where, with better statistical definitions, we have identified clear need are needy families and pensioners who have not historically


benefited as much as others. Our new premium structure in income support this spring and our new special package to be introduced this autumn will help precisely those groups and will, I imagine, be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that notwithstanding the welcome help that will be given in October to that group of pensioners, who are suffering dire financial hardship, there is still a need? Have the Government planned beyond October, and is there any hope of the Christmas bonus being increased or of help being given with fuel during the coming winter?

Mr. Moore: I fully understand why the hon. Gentleman would like to open up the debate beyond the autumn. I recognise that we should constantly try to understand and to resolve the real needs of those who are relatively less well off. I shall try to continue that process, because I know that it will he welcomed by rational right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. McCrindle: Whatever may be our definition of poverty, can it possibly extend to those people to which an article in The Sunday Times referred yesterday under the heading
Jobless tenants living for free in luxury flats"?
Is it true, as that article alleged, that private landlords are making substantial profits? If so, does my right hon. Friend intend taking powers to control that situation, on the basis that although we have no wish to be difficult with the jobless, we must look to the taxpayers, too?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend has a long history of understanding and trying to help people, so I know that he would like me to remind the House that all those on income support have their housing benefit—their rent essentially 100 per cent. covered. I saw the article in The Sunday Times, and my hon. Friend is right to remind the House that it is necessary to prevent abuse. He will be happy to know that we are taking additional powers through the Social Security Bill to protect the public purse while equally trying to protect those in genuine need.

Mr. Frank Field: Although I accept that it is the Government's policy to be selective, I invite the Secretary of State to quote all my article, not just part of it. In the article that he cited, I compared British society up to 1979 with a train journey, with first, second and third-class compartments—the political debate being about who received which tickets, but all of us heading in the same direction. Since 1979, some of the compartments have been detached and there has emerged from them an underclass. How do the Government answer that part of the argument?

Mr. Moore: I have the whole of the hon. Gentleman's article before me, but no doubt neither he nor the House would want me to argue against it all. The critical point that I sought to make was that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), unlike the Labour party, understands the statistical absurdity of defining a poverty line. I know that the hon. Gentleman would like to be reminded that, taking all the 10 per cent. categories in the country over the past decade, the bottom 10 per cent. have seen an improvement, according to the latest data that we have, and their real position has improved by 6 per cent.

All the other groups—all the way to the top—have shared in the inherent growth in prosperity. I know that the hon. Member for Birkenhead will welcome that.

Mr. Baldry: Is it not right to say that between 1975 and 1985 households having the lowest one fifth of incomes have seen their incomes rise by about 14 per cent? If that is so, does it not make complete nonsense of any notion that the poor are getting poorer? Does it not prove that that is simply not true?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. The whole subject merits nothing less than the most serious attention, and it does not serve those who are in need to argue the statistical absurdities by which some people have allowed themselves to be trapped. Instead, it serves people in need to identify that need so that more effective help can be given. Fortunately, we have the wealth of a much more successful society to enable us to do that now.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Secretary of State accept that if poverty is in decline, it certainly has nothing to do with the Government's social security policies? Did he notice last week's study by York university of unemployed families, showing that three quarters of them cannot afford essential clothing and that two fifths cannot afford to a sound diet? Is not that reasonable evidence that those families are in poverty? If the Secretary of State accepts the truth of that, what does he say to another of the report's conclusions: that, as a result of last year's benefits cuts, half the families concerned are now even poorer than they were two years ago?

Mr. Moore: I start by asking the hon. Gentleman to be more accurate. I imagine that he has not had the benefit of reading the reports. I certainly have not, but I have the benefit of understanding their basis. The survey was conducted before last year's social security reforms. Researchers only suggest, and the reports themselves studied only 67 families in the autumn of 1987. Given the smallness of the survey, and the fact that it covered a period before the reforms, I do not accept the conclusions that the hon. Gentleman has drawn. What I do say is that the hon. Gentleman should have welcomed the way in which the Government have been able to increase, in real terms, expenditure on those least able to look after themselves by more than 31 per cent. in the past 10 years. That is a sign of targeted additional help as a consequence of the present wealth of the country.

Social Fund

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's publicity campaign to increase take-up of social security fund grants and loans.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: We will shortly publish information material on the social fund to improve awareness among those who have the greatest need for these payments and, most importantly, their advisers.

Mr. Evans: That is all very interesting, but of what benefit has all that expensive advertising been to a 55-year-old unemployed male constituent of mine? He lives alone, has recently been refused the higher level of benefit and is now forced to exist on £35·52 a week. Is that not a classic case of the poor getting poorer?

Mr. Lloyd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot discuss a particular case at the Dispatch Box. If he wishes to get in touch with me about it, I should be happy for him to do so.
As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, there has been no expensive advertising for most of the benefits that are available. They are very well taken up. We are running right up to profile on the budgets for the social fund, which has become well known and is doing a good job.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although it must be right to target money where it is most needed, the problem of targeting is that most social security offices, certainly in Birmingham, are much under spent because people need almost an honours degree to know what they can claim? Does my hon. Friend also agree that saving people distress is much more important than saving money and that, if we are to get the changes truly right, we must ensure that people know what they have a right to and that the appropriate people obtain the care that is so desperately needed?

Mr. Lloyd: Let me answer the general point by saying that £9 of every £10 of social security benefits is claimed. As for the social fund, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important for people to know what is on offer, and that they are entitled to it. The information material to which I referred in my answer to the main question is designed to ensure that groups with a particular entitlement to the social fund know exactly how far it extends and what is available to them.

Disability Surveys

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' surveys on disability; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Scott: Organisations of and for disabled people are already commenting on the published findings of the OPCS surveys of disability. We welcome these comments, which contribute to the process of reviewing disability benefits in the light of the final data.

Mr. Thurnham: Having extended the availability of the mobility allowance from 75 to 80-year-olds, will my right hon. Friend now use the OPCS surveys as a basis for a thorough review of disability benefits, and will he consult fully the relevant disability organisations?

Mr. Scott: I am anxious to announce—when we have the final data —a timetable for further action and consultation will balance the need to listen carefully to the views of organisations of and for disabled people with no undue delay in the necessary action.

Mrs. Beckett: The whole House will welcome the fact that, even before all the reviews have been published, the Government have accepted the case for restoring to the terminally ill some of the payment for attendance that they lost during the latest social security cuts. Will he reconsider the refusal to put even an enabling clause into this year's Social Security Bill, as, by definition, most of those who fail now to meet the six-month qualifying period are likely to be dead before the change in the law takes place?

Mr. Scott: We must wait until we have the final results of the survey. As I have said, that—along with the matter

raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—is something that we were prepared to consider on a faster track than other matters. I think that I must let it rest there for the time being.

Family Credit

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families on low incomes have experienced an increase in their incomes in real terms as a result of the introduction of family credit; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Moore: Precise estimates of real increases in income are not possible, but family credit is now providing more help to more families. The average amount in payment is over £25 compared with £15·28 for family income supplement and the very latest figures show that at the end of last week 263,400 awards were actually in payment. But with 86,400 claims still being processed I estimate that the underlying case load is now 315,000.

Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that many families at the bottom end of the income scale are definitely better off since family credit was introduced? However much the Opposition might huff and puff, that cannot be denied. Does he agree that rather than handing out indiscrimimate blanket subsidies through child benefit, it is far more sensible to target those families who genuinely need help through family credit, as the Government are now doing?

Mr. Moore: I remind my hon. Friend of what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security said in a debate not too long ago: that there is a judicious mix of targeted benefits that go along with, as in the case with income support, a special family premium and family credit. I am delighted that there has been a major improvement in take-up consequent upon the advertising campaign. We are spending £4·5 billion out of a budget of £9 billion on help to families with children. I remind my hon. Friend of what we said in our election manifesto on the issue, as well as of my statutory duties. We are seeking to achieve a balance between broad, targeted benefits and indiscriminate benefits of the child benefit kind.

Mr. Frank Field: As the Government are so pleased with the take-up of family credit, may we assume that they are equally pleased with the amendment that was passed recently in the other place linking increases in child benefit to the increases in this new, super family credit?

Mr. Moore: I am as pleased as I am sure the hon. Member is that additional help is going to families on low incomes. The hon. Gentleman is referring to an entirely different matter. The other place is still considering the Social Security Bill, which will return to this House at some stage. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will recall vividly that the House took a clear decision on the subject earlier this year.

Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those on low incomes are most affected by inflation and that it ill behoves the Opposition to lecture us on either subject?

Mr. Moore: That is absolutely right. For generations inflation destroyed the savings of pensioners. Above all else, we must ensure that we eradicate inflation.

Housing Benefit

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that delays at social security offices do not lead to housing benefit claims being held up with consequent accumulation of unanticipated rent arrears; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am not aware of delays in social security offices that may affect the award of housing benefit. Turnround times for income support claims for the month of April 1989, the latest available figure, averaged 4·7 days while those for changes in circumstances averaged 1·3 days. These figures compare with 8·1 and 4·8 respectively for April 1988. This significant improvement reflects the success of the Government's reform of social security and the hard work and commitment of the staff of local social security offices.

Mr. Allen: I am staggered that the Minister has no evidence of delays. I shall certainly try to help him with evidence from Nottingham, North and no doubt some of my hon. Friends will send him information about their constituencies. Has he read the National Audit Office report on the implementation of the charges in housing benefit which was published recently? Has he also read in the report the evidence that was given by a senior officer in his Department? Is the Minister aware that his Department and his boss are criticised in the report for delays, for not bringing forward the programme early enough, for not allowing local authorities to develop their software arid for not allowing local authorities enough time to put their staff into place? I ask the Minister to read the report. It affects constituents. Some of my constituents lost almost £1,000 through a build-up of arrears that were totally unknown to them. They had never been in debt before. The report was signed by members of his Department, and they agreed the wording. Will he either sack them or implement the recommendations of the National Audit Office report?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is talking about something that is quite different from his question. I know of no delays in local offices that are holding up the payment of housing benefit. There have been complaints about the delay in transitional payments, but when they are examined one finds that in most cases the hold-up is due to information not having been received from local authorities.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: As the supplementary question referred to delays in local social security offices, and as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and I share at least one such office, would it not be fair to the staff who work in that office to make it plain to the House that normally they deal with every single claim that comes into the office within five days, and with most of them within 48 hours?

Mr. Lloyd: I believe that the performance of the local offices in Nottingham is very good indeed. I took it that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) was implicitly criticising them in asking his question. If he has any particular examples that he wishes to bring to my attention, I shall be happy to investigate them.

Dr. Reid: May I recommend that the Minister reads the National Audit Office report? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), I am a

member of the Public Accounts Committee. I have read that report, and I can assure my hon. Friend that his summary is far more accurate than the Minister's response —which was based on a 30-second conversation with his boss, the Secretary of State, who is sitting beside him. Transitional units are merely compounding the problem that they were set up to alleviate due to the long delays in assessment and because when assessment produced a rebate the money was not forwarded to the local authorities in time, so tenants who had never been in arrears in their lives received an assurance from the transitional unit that they would get rebates but the money never arrived, producing a commensurate build-up of arrears. Will the Minister do something about that?

Mr. Lloyd: The transitional payments are operating extremely well, although there were some hiccups, but the main question was not about transitional payments. Like the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has not referred to cases in his local offices or cases known to him in which payment of housing benefit has been held up due to a lack of information passing from the local office to the local authority.

Social Security Reform

Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he has made as a result of monitoring the social security reforms introduced in April last year.

Mr. Scott: The memorandum supplied by the Department to the Select Committee on Social Services on 6 June, copies of which are available in the Library, includes a full list of the major changes we have made.

Mrs. Roe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply, but what has been done to help 16 and 17-year-olds who are forced to live away from home?

Mr. Scott: I know that my hon. Friend agrees very strongly with the main thrust of the Government's policy towards 16 and 17-year-olds, but the whole House will welcome the fact that 16 and 17-year-olds who have to live away from home will receive a higher rate of income support—the rate normally paid to 18 to 24-year-olds—if they are estranged from their parents. The higher level will also apply to those on housing benefit.

Mr. Pike: Why does not the Minister make at least one further change to help those people on protected payments who were on supplementary benefit before the system was changed and are now on income support, who received absolutely no increase in April? With inflation running at 8·4 per cent. they are considerably worse off. Why does he not make at least one change to help those people?

Mr. Scott: When we introduced the new system, we wanted to get rid of the complexities of the old supplementary benefit system. To avoid the erosion of transitional protection would perpetuate those inequalities and complexities for the future. I am quite sure that we are right to erode it.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Has my right hon. Friend been able to monitor the working of the social fund, particularly the ability of people living on very low incomes to repay loans


for items of domestic equipment which go wrong and on which they have to borrow? How can they find £5 a week out of £46 a week?

Mr. Scott: We shall shortly be publishing the first report on the social fund. A report has also been produced by the social fund commissioner herself. There is little evidence to show that people are unable to take up loans from the social fund because of their inability to pay.

Mr. Robin Cook: May I press the Minister on the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) about claimants on transitional protection? Is he aware that figures from his own Department show that next April 200,000 claimants will get no increase as a result of transitional protection? What does he say to the chronically sick claimant who wrote to me because he had just been informed that he would get no increase for another four years? Is it fair to leave a disabled claimant without any increase for seven years in total? What more monitoring do Ministers need before they recognise that in common decency all claimants, whether or not they receive transitional protection, must share in next year's uprating?

Mr. Scott: I still believe that the policy of eroding transitional protection is right. No constituent can know or calculate the number of years that it will take before his transitional protection is entirely eroded. I also remind the House that in October we shall be providing protection for elderly and disabled pensioners which will not affect their transitional protection.

National Insurance

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much he expects to collect in national insurance contributions during the current year; what the expected figure will be next year; what the figures for each of the last two years were in real terms; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lloyd: The yield from national insurance contributions is expected to be more than £32 billion in the current year and more than £33 billion in 1990–91. In the past two years, contributions yielded £31·.1 billion and £32·3 billion in real terms.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that those figures represent 16 per cent. of Government revenue and that NICs as an acronym for national insurance contributions are not aptly named? Will the Department be pressing the Chancellor to remit national insurance contributions from more low-paid people as happened this year?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend rightly said that the yield from national insurance contributions represents 16 per cent. of Government receipts, compared with income tax which represents 23 per cent. Naturally, the DSS— particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State —makes representations to and has discussions with the Chancellor and the Treasury about how much such revenue should be applied. I am sure that my hon. Friend took special pleasure from the reductions that were made in NICs for the lower paid in the last Budget.

Mr. Flynn: The huge anticipated increase in national insurance yields is sufficient to give, from October, an increase of £3 per week for a single pensioner and £5 per

week for a pensioner couple. Does the Minister agree that anyone other than the Government plundering the national insurance fund would end up in court on a charge of fraud? Do the Government intend to continue to attempt not to pay the Treasury supplement which has been paid for three quarters of a century? Is the Minister aware that if the supplement were paid at the same rate as in 1979, a single pensioner would now be receiving an additional £11·50 per week and a pensioner couple an additional £18 per week? When will the Government stop using the national insurance fund to steal from pensioners? Directors enjoying an annual increase of 27 per cent. are steaming ahead in the first-class carriage while pensioners are in a detached, third-class carriage moving rapidly backwards.

Mr. Lloyd: If any stealing was done, it was when the last Labour Government imposed the 3·5 per cent. surcharge on industry. That was a huge burden on business, but we have got rid of it. There will be no short-changing of pensioners. They will receive the full increase, according to inflation, to which they are entitled this autumn. In addition, the poorest pensioners—those on income support, those over 75, and those over 60 who are disabled —will receive an extra increase in October. That shows not merely that pensioners receive their full entitlement from the fund but that we look after those who are least well off.

Family Credit

Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many more families are in receipt of family credit than received family income supplement; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Moore: My best estimate of the underlying caseload for family credit is 315,000, compared with around 220,000 on the same basis for family income supplement.

Mr. Amos: I am delighted to see how successful family credit has been. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to abolish child benefit and add that money to family credit so that more people in the greatest need can be assisted rather than state money being given to rich people who do not need it?

Mr. Moore: As I said earlier, we provide £9 billion in support for families with children, £4·5 billion of which is provided through child benefit. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security said in an earlier debate, the Government aim to provide—not only because of our manifesto commitment to child benefit but because it is my statutory duty—a judicious mix of intelligent targeting through income support, child premiums, family credit and child benefit to help families with children. The Government would not maintain that commitment as strongly as we do unless he believed that that mix was right.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the continuing industrial action on the railways and the statement made by the National Union of Railwaymen and others that railwaymen are grossly underpaid, will the Secretary of State set up and inquiry to report rapidly on the number of NUR members and other people working on the railways who are earning poverty wages and being forced to draw, in effect, a public subsidy to subsidise their wages?

Mr. Moore: I am always intrigued by the way in which the hon. Gentleman manages to get so many different issues into one question. I shall continue to do as is my duty—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Set up an inquiry.

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is always extremely articulate from a sedentary position. [Interruption.] If he and other Opposition Members can contain themselves for 30 seconds, I will seek to answer the question. The Government are fortunately able to spend about £400 million this year on support for families on low incomes as against about £180 million on family income supplement and as opposed to the £48 million spent on similar families when Labour was last tragically in office. The sum spent was so low due to Labour's appalling inability to run the economy. That is the difference and I am sure that the House will endorse it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Ministerial Conduct

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General why, pursuant to his answer of 12 June Official Report, column 549, he does not accept the premise that it is important to our system of government that Ministers do not tell lies to the House of Commons.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): No sensible construction of my answer can support that assertion.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Attorney-General believe the leak from Sir Leon Brittan, who complains that Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell approved the disclosure of his letter? How, as a Law Officer of all things in this Government, can he remain easy when he sees the people who abused his own actions more prominent in Madrid than the Foreign Secretary?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid that I cannot encourage the hon. Gentleman by adding anything to the answer that I gave on 8 May to his hon. Friend for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If my right hon. and learned Friend cannot do anything about that, can he at least do something to protect the people against political parties which constantly sing songs proclaiming people's power and red flags, but then say that they want to surrender all power to Brussels and the bureaucrats?

The Attorney-General: I am expected to be extremely versatile in this position, but my authority does not extend to taking any such steps as would satisfy my hon. Friend.

Mr. Winnick: Are we to believe that someone in Government lied about the leaking of the letter, but that parliamentary convention does not allow the Attorney-General to say so? Do we take it that civil servants at No. 10 lied, or is the Attorney-General telling the House that he believes what we believe about the leaking of that letter, but that as a member of the Government he is hardly in a position to say so?

The Attorney-General: I thought that I had dealt as usefully as was within my power with much the same question from the hon. Gentleman on 8 May.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if
Brevity is the soul of wit
constant repetition must be the sign of a most unoriginal mind?

The Attorney-General: We all have our own styles. but as I have a frog in my throat I had better emulate those who practise brevity.

"Today" Newspaper Story

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General what action for interference with the course of justice he has taken against the Today newspaper for its front-page story on 11 May headed, "Maggie IRA Bomb Squad Seized" concerning the arrest of three Irishmen who were later released.

The Attorney-General: The matter is under consideration.

Mr. Mullin: Does the Attorney-General agree that such newspaper reports give credence to the belief that an Irishman cannot hope for a fair trial in this country?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman does no service to the administration of justice in this country by asking such a question, but I do not suppose that he intends to.

Mr. Stanbrook: Under his powers to restrain interference with the course of justice, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the leader of the Storehouse group, who has announced that he intends that his shops should open on Sundays in clear breach of the law? Can he not be committed?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not believe that that question has anything to do with the IRA.

Personal Injury Cases

Mr. Allen: To ask the Attonery-General what measures are in hand to assist county courts in meeting the additional caseload of personal injury cases transferred to their jurisdiction; and if he will make a statement.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Such cases are increasingly concentrated in 43 trials centres, which are organised to guarantee a continuous hearing in all the longer cases and thus make efficient use both of court rooms and of judges' time, and provide a better service to litigants.

Mr. Allen: Is the Solicitor-General aware that one of the main avenues through which ordinary people on normal incomes come into contact with justice is through personal injury cases? Will he therefore take particular steps to ensure that there are no unnecessary delays in bringing such cases to court? Those cases, many of which involve trade unionists and others injured at work, are being delayed because they are being transferred to the county courts. Will the Solicitor-General take steps to improve the situation'? A number of county courts are now issuing notices of delays, of which I have a number of examples. One case recently brought to my attention is of Luton county court, where no foreseeable date is given for


such cases coming to court. That is tragic for the individuals involved. What does the Solicitor-General intend to do about it?

The Solicitor-General: My primary answer was that the longer cases should be concentrated into particular trial centres. However, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that our objectives—not only in the civil justice review, which was announced recently, but in the proposed rule changes to come next January in advance of the civil justice review—are to achieve the aims that the hon. Gentleman set out.

Mr. Fraser: Is the Solicitor-General aware of some of the inadequacies and inefficiencies of the county courts? Camelford county court, for example, stopped sending out notices in June because the postal budget had been spent and notices had to wait until the following month. Can the Solicitor-General confirm that the rule for county courts will not be penny-pinching justice, but the efficient and speedy administration of justice for all?

The Solicitor-General: I confess that I was not aware of that idiosyncrasy of Camelford county court, but I will have the matter looked into and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Judges

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Attorney-General what qualities the Lord Chancellor looks for in prospective judges; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: High Court and circuit judges are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. The criteria for selection are judicial potential, ability, experience, reputation and personal inrtegrity.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied that, in practice, all those appointed to be judges, including Judge Pickles, satisfy those criteria? Is there any prospect within the reforms envisaged for the legal profession of the appointment of lay judges—properly advised, perhaps, in view of the judges' role in advising on the law? Would it be possible to appoint people such as ex-bishops—[Interruption.] — ex-headmastersand even ex-Cabinet Ministers to be judges?

The Attorney-General: My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor attaches the greatest importance to the criteria that I have mentioned. Great care is taken and there is wide consultation on the appointment of judges. Whether there would be a higher incidence of the totality of those criteria if eligibility for the higher courts and higher judges were extended as my hon. Friend suggests is a matter for debate that he may like to take up elsewhere.

Mr. Skinner: Is it true that the bottom line of the application form that the Lord Chancellor overlooks says, "Is he one of us?" in accordance with the Prime Minister's dictum, and how many judges are freemasons? Has the Attorney-General done a survey on that? If the threatened strike of barristers and others goes ahead at the Royal Courts of Justice—it was put off a short time ago—will the strike breakers feature prominently as future judges and will the Economic League be given a list of the strike leaders? Will all that be taken into account?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman will find that the selection of judges is made far more widely by the present Lord Chancellor, and by all his predecessors of either party, than would be the case if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were ever in a position to appoint judges.

Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that for cases involving children and young people there is considerable merit in having a judge whose taste in music post-dates the Beatles? For cases involving children, will he consider appointing the equivalent of the French juge d'enfants, who is often a much younger person on his or her way up the legal ladder?

The Attorney-General: I very much take my hon. Friend's point. Jurisdiction over the family and especially over children is of the highest importance and calls for special qualities. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor seeks to appoint to the family division judges who demonstrate those qualities and his appointments meet with considerable success. It is not necessarily a question of one's taste in music, which could be pre-Beatles as well as post-Beatles.

Immigration Rules

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the recent correspondence between the Treasury solicitors and immigration adjudicators concerning the application of the immigration rules in appeal hearings.

The Solicitor-General: The Treasury Solicitor wrote not to adjudicators but to the president of the immigration appeal tribunal, on whose behalf he had acted as legal adviser in the judicial review proceedings. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 9 June.

Mr. Cohen: Has not the Attorney-General had to admit that there was a blatant attempt to interfere with the judiciary in immigration tribunal cases, and is not that interference of constitutional significance? Who was responsible? Was it a Minister or the staff of a Minister? Will the Solicitor-General explain? Should there not be a public apology?

The Solicitor-General: If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the reply to his hon. Friend, he would have found his questions answered and his mind set at rest.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Peru

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase development grants to Peru.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): I have no plans at present for an increase. It is likely that we shall maintain our programme of technical co-operation to Peru at approximately current levels for the foreseeable future.

Dr. Howells: Given the way in which certain British companies are growing fat by tearing the mineral wealth


and the rain forests out of South America, why do we allocate such miserable amounts of aid to countries such as Peru, which are struggling democracies attempting to rebuild their economies? As those countries are trying to prevent themselves from becoming dominated by the drugs barons who grow drugs there and since the British Government set up such a hue and cry about fighting those drugs barons when the drugs come into this country, why is more money not given to help those struggling democracies to overcome the problem at source?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman has covered a broad waterfront. with a number of non sequiturs en route. I shall be interested to discuss the problem of tropical rain forests with him when I return from Brazil in a week or two.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the total size of our programme in Peru, we have never had large programmes in Latin America—under Governments of either party—because much of our aid is concentrated on Commonwealth countries and on the poorest countries. We have a programme of about £1 million in Peru, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are 77 countries poorer than Peru.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest difficulties about development programmes with Peru is that country's inability to sort out its international financial affairs? Is it not high time that the Peruvian Government buckled down to sorting out their debts and financial position, as much of the rest of Latin America has already done?

Mr. Patten: Peru's best chance of getting more capital aid lies in reconciliation with the multilateral banks with which it is at present in arrears.

Non-commercial Aid

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the gross national product is accounted for in non-commercial aid to developing countries in (a) 1975, (b) 1980, (c) 1985 and (d) 1989.

Mr. Chris Patten: United Kingdom net official development assistance and grants by United Kingdom voluntary agencies represented 0·41 per cent. of GNP in 1975, and 0·37 per cent. in both 1980 and 1985. The figure for 1989 will not be available until next year. The provisional figure for 1988 is 0·35 per cent.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister take this opportunity to deny the scandalous story in yesterday's edition of The Observer to the effect that recent British non-commercial development aid to Malaysia was tied to the purchase of British armaments?

Mr. Patten: I have denied that story many times. It is quite an old story. It first surfaced in The Guardian in June last year and has since been recycled in The Observer. I denied it most recently and explicitly in evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Jack: I wish my right hon. Friend well on his forthcoming trip to Brazil. Will he confirm that one of the most effective ways in which Britain can help with

non-commerical aid is by making expertise available to countries such as Brazil to help them deal with their forestry problems?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. We have as much expertise on tropical forestry matters in this country as exists anywhere else in the world and some splendid experts, such as Dr. Prance, a member of our recent environmental mission to Brazil.

Third World Development

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies his Department has sponsored of the role of the free market in fostering economic development in the Third world.

Mr. Chris Patten: My Department is sponsoring a range of studies. They include assessment of the more liberal economic policies that many developing countries are pursuing under structural adjustment programmes and the role of market forces in stimulating agriculture, forestry, industry and foreign trade.

Mr. Marshall: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment to the Privy Council. Does he agree that in the Third world, as elsewhere, there is a strong correlation between economic growth and the adoption of a social market economy? Will he therefore concentrate our economic assistance on those countries that have had the foresight to adopt the social market economy rather than indulging in a mindless morass of Marxism and Socialism?

Mr. Patten: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his kind personal reference and I am lost in envy at his final alliteration. I can confirm what my hon. Friend said about the importance of market forces and the price mechanism in supporting sustainable economic development. We have put an increasing amount of our aid into supporting economic reform programmes which are more likely to encourage the development of the private sector and inward private investment. I am delighted that so many countries are pursuing more sensible economic policies and I note that the leader of the Labour party, Peter Mandelson, is also more in favour of market economics these days.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to the exposure by the Daily Record of conditions on the tea plantations in Bangladesh of James Finlay and Company? Will he join me in deploring the outrageous exploitation of labour, including child labour? Does he accept that that is the unacceptable face of the free market in the Third world and, if so, will he bring the matter to the attention of the Commonwealth Development Corporation?

Mr. Patten: I have not seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention, although I condemn such exploitation wherever it occurs. We are involved in a number of projects on the tea estates of Bangladesh to improve housing and other social conditions. That is a sensible and important use of our aid money. I hope that private sector companies as well as public sector companies will do all that they can to ensure social equity as well as market forces as the best engines of economic growth.

Andean Countries

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to increase aid to the Andean group of countries.

Mr. Chris Patten: I have no plans at present to increase aid levels to the Andean group of countries. I expect our aid programmes to those countries to be maintained at approximately current levels for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Sheerman: I congratulate the Minister on his promotion. Is it not about time that he seized the opportunities of his office and started to do something for undeveloped countries, notably those in South America where, after 10 years of Conservative Government, only a measly £10 million flows from this wealthy country to countries that are struggling for democracy and struggling to fight drugs and poverty? When will the Minister do something?

Mr. Patten: I will answer that question as though it were a string of compliments. I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the region and his particular interest in Peru, which is as welcome in that country as in this. I repeat what I said earlier. We have traditionally concentrated our aid programmes on the Commonwealth and on poorer countries. If we are likely to do more in Latin America, it will almost certainly be due to our growing interest and concern about environmental issues. That is one reason why, as I said earlier, I am going to Brazil later today.

Overseas Development Administration Silver Jubilee

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to celebrate the Overseas Development Administration's silver jubilee.

Mr. Chris Patten: On 28 June my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in the presence of Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal, hosted a reception at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to mark the publication of an anniversary edition of the ODA's annual review. Copies are being distributed widely. Earlier that

day, I launched at the Royal Society of Arts two new specially commissioned videos on the key issues of the environment and the role of science in development.

Mr. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to celebrate 25 years of aid is to give further encouragement to those charities and other non-governmental organisations which have played such a significant part in development? Should we not be encouraging more volunteers to go to developing countries?

Mr. Patten: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We helped 60 charitable agencies last year in long-term development work covering 800 projects. We should be able to do more this year, having increased the funds available for the joint funding scheme by just over 40 per cent. We are also increasing the amount of financial assistance to volunteering agencies. This year their grant will have risen by just over 20 per cent. I hope that the number of volunteers will increase from about 1,300 now to about 1,500 by 1990.

Miss Lestor: Enjoyable though the celebrations were last week—the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to invite me—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has seen in the jubilee edition of "Overseas Development", the ODA newspaper, the anger expressed by former Minister Dame Judith Hart at the Government's record in the past 10 years. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is more to celebrate in 25 years of ODA than glossy brochures and pleasant receptions, much though we all enjoyed them? Will the right hon. Gentleman mark the occasion by announcing his timetable for British aid to reach 0·7 per cent of GNP, bearing in mind that if press speculation is correct and he leaves ODA this summer he will leave behind a drop in aid in real terms of 18 per cent. since 1979?

Mr. Patten: In response to the hon. Lady's latter point, I think it was someone like Cardinal Manning—or perhaps it was Lord St. John of Fawsley—who said:
I do not ask to see
The distant scene; one step enough for me.
In response to the hon. Lady's first point, the fact that we quote Baroness Hart in our publication does not show that we agree with her, but merely that we believe in a plural society. I am delighted that this year the aid programme is growing by 12 per cent. in cash terms and 7 per cent. in real terms.

Points of Order

Sir John Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was it in order for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to imply in a recent question that there was corruption in the appointment of judges? Far from being funny, were his remarks not entirely out of order?

Mr. Speaker: I do not recollect that anything that the hon. Gentleman said in my presence was out of order.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I would like to place it on the record that I did not pay the hon. Gentleman to say that.

Mr. Speaker: I have protected the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He does not need to do anything else.

Mr. David Madel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to seek your guidance. On Wednesday we face another hugely disruptive strike on the railways, with both sides being as far apart as ever and no sign of any move towards a new arbitration system. Have you had any indication from the Government, Mr. Speaker, about when they might share their thinking with us as to how British Rail can be helped to get out of this terrible mess which is having a bad effect on industry, on my constituents and on the constituents of Croydon?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no such notification. The Leader of the I louse is on the Treasury Bench, and I am sure that he will have heard what the hon. Member has said.

Water Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [6th February] he supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Seven p.m. on the second of those days.

(2) The order in which those proceedings are to be taken shall be Lords Amendments 1 to 43, Lords Amendment 55, Lords Amendments 44 to 54, Lords Amendments 56 to 116, Lords Amendment 155, Lords Amendments 117 to 154, Lords Amendments 156 to 237, Lords Amendments 267 and 277, Lords Amendments 238 to 266, Lords Amendments 268 to 276 and remaining Lords Amendments.

(3) Subject to the provisions of the Order [6th February], each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table set out below.

Table—Proceedings


Allotted day
Lords Amendments
Time far conclusion of proceedings


First day
Nos. 1 to 13
6.00 p.m.



Nos. 14 to 43 and No. 55
7.30 p.m.



Nos. 44 to 54 and Nos. 56 to 116
10.00 p.m.


Second day
No. 155, Nos. 117 to 154,
5.00 p.m.



Nos. 156 to 237 and Nos. 267 and 277




Nos. 238 to 266, Nos. 268 to 276 and




Nos. 278 to 311
5.30 p.m.



Remaining Lords Amendments
7.00 p.m.

(4) Paragraph 7 of the Order [6th February] (extra time on allotted days) shall not apply to the allotted days for the proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; but where the conclusion of any of those proceedings is postponed until a time after Ten o'clock under paragraph 9(4) of that Order (Motions under Standing Order No. 20), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings until that time.

2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above —

(a) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may he, in their Amendment as amended;


(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—


(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental provisions with respect to certain proceedings

4.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up reasons shall report the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

(7) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this paragraph, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

I move the motion as the House comes to the end of the

long and exhaustive consideration of a Bill which fully honours our election manifesto commitment to return water authorities to the public and to establish a National Rivers Authority. We shall shortly see scenes of synthetic outrage from the Opposition about the time that is allowed for consideration of the Lords amendments. I want to start by getting some facts on the record.
The Bill has already been debated in this House for two days on Second Reading, for 153 hours in 35 Committee sittings, and for three full days on Report and Third Reading—a total of 198 hours before today.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Minister explain why, despite the massive amount of money that has been spent to publicise the Bill, all the propaganda and so on, the latest poll shows that 79 per cent. of the population are totally opposed to water being privatised? Is it not clear that the Government have no mandate for it? If there were a free vote tonight, the Bill would not receive majority support, and the Minister knows that.

Mr. Howard: I welcome Opposition Members' new-found enthusiasm for opinion polls. However, opinion polls may come and opinion polls may go. By the time the only opinion poll that matters takes place the proposals will be working well in practice and their advantages will be apparent to all our people.
Although the Bill has been guillotined, we have used the timetable procedure not to impose unreasonable restraints on debate but to allow for a sensible allocation of time to the different elements of the Bill. That would not have occurred if Opposition Members had continued with the pace that they set in Committee, when they managed to go so slowly that, after 75 hours, only nine clauses had been debated. The Bill has also been examined in great detail for more than 100 hours of debate over 13 days in another place. It is simply not possible to argue that the Bill had not been fully considered. Throughout those many hours of debate, the Government have listened carefully and sympathetically to all reasonable arguments put before them. We said at the outset that if sensible improvements were suggested, we would respond positively to them. That is precisely what we have done, and that is why it now falls to this House to consider these amendments.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Does my hon. and learned Friend consider that we have sufficiently discussed the protection of land that is currently owned by Thames Water? The assurances that he gave at the beginning of last month have recently been withdrawn, thus making a great deal of Thames Water's land available for redevelopment rather than protection by the local authority because of its conservation or environmental use.

Mr. Howard: It is not right to say that assurances that were given earlier in the month or about a month ago were withdrawn. We shall no doubt debate this matter more fully when we consider the amendments relating to land. When we put forward our original amendments relating in particular to specific protection for land in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, we were met with a chorus of opposition on the basis that sites of special scientific interest should be specifically designated and that the reserve power to which we pointed as being available to deal with that aspect of the problem was, in effect, a waste of time and not worth the paper that it was written


on. We responded to those criticisms as we have responded to so many other criticisms. We have inserted specific protection in the Bill for sites of special scientific interest and removed the reserve power that met with disapproval when it was introduced.
I invite the House to consider the nature of the amendments which were inserted into the Bill in another place. There are 341 of them, but many of them are so technical that they do not even warrant grouping other than in one large group. Even some of those technical amendments are to meet points raised by the Opposition. Of those that are grouped, we have difficulty with only two. Of the rest. well over half the groups of amendments on the Notice Paper are Government responses to arguments that had the support of all sides in another place. Many of the rest represented minor tidying-up points. The nature of the amendments before the House today can be judged by the fact that only once in another place were the Government obliged to go through the Division Lobby in support of them. In this House the Opposition have not put down a single motion of disagreement with any of the amendments that were made in another place.
That is the background against which the protest that we shall doubtless shortly hear from Opposition Members needs to be assessed. We have, of course, known from the outset that the Opposition were committed to a policy of delay and frustration, but we wish to press on with the Bill which provides the key to cleaner rivers and beaches and purer drinking water. It is this Bill which gives the industry access to the private capital that it needs to complete the clean up; it is this Bill which puts an end to the gamekeeper-poacher conflict that has so bedevilled the operations of the water authorities; and it is this Bill which gives the workers in one of our most important industries a real stake in the future.
The time has come to deal with the few remaining issues and to move on to the next stages—putting the regulatory framework in place, vesting the functions, assets and liabilities of the authorities with the new companies and, in November, selling the shares in those companies to the public so that they can take a direct stake in the industry that lies at the heart of so many of our environmental concerns. I commend the motion to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: I am sorry to disappoint the Minister so early in my remarks, but I assure him that none of the synthetic anger that he was forced to mention so often in his brief remarks will emanate from the Opposition. There may be some synthetic support, however, from Conservative Members in the Division' Lobby.
It is eight months this week since the Second Reading of the Water Bill in the Chamber. The Secretary of State's parting words then were:
This is a good Bill for consumers, for future shareholders, for taxpayers, for workers in the industry; above all, it is a good Bill for the environment."—[Official Report, 7 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 344.]
The Opposition feel rather sorry for the Secretary of State and those who have had to do the Prime Minister's dirty work on this very dirty Bill. After the Football Spectators Bill, one might say that this is the flood. Over those months, the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr.

Moynihan), who is not present now, although I am sure that he will be around later in the proceedings, have had to prop up a case in support of privatising the nation's water assets which, frankly, is so ramshackle as to have no hope of surviving for very long. They have spent eight months on the pathetic task of trying to persuade the British people that water privatisation is a good or even a desirable thing for consumers, taxpayers and the environment. It seems, however, not only from the responses from the public during those eight months, but even from a survey this weekend, that they have failed to persuade anyone. The Observer Harris poll showed yesterday that 79 per cent. of people remain implacably opposed to privatisation; 79 per cent. are worried or very worried about the quality of our bathing beaches; one third of people are dissatisfied with the quality of their drinking water; 69 per cent. think that water should meet new European standards before any sell-off is even contemplated; 68 per cent. think that the Government's record on pollution control is not at all good or not very good; and 85 per cent. think that water will cost them more after privatisation.
Whatever else Ministers have been doing during the past eight months, they have singularly failed to persuade the British public that there is much good, if any, in the Bill.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend will be the first to agree that the Opposition should always be fair. Does he blame, as the Prime Minister blames, the Secretary of State and the Minister for Water and Planning? Could they be responsible for the public's failure to accept water privatisation? Does not the real responsibility lie with the Prime Minister? Were it not for her, such dangerous nonsense would not have been pursued in the first place. Does my hon. Friend agree that the public will not buy this rubbish, whoever puts it forward, and that the responsibility does not lie with the Secretary of State or the Minister, however much one recognises that the Secretary of State is the last person to persuade anyone?

Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill, like the Football Spectators Bill and the poll tax before it, is here because the Prime Minister has insisted on its being placed on the statute book against all the advice of independent people and, I am sure, much private advice from many of her right hon. and hon. Friends. The Secretary of State and the Minister are scapegoats for the Prime Minister's dogmatic attitudes. Too bad, one might say, for the Secretary of State and the Minister; too bad that they are forced to push through the Prime Minister's views; too bad that their campaign to persuade even the City that water is a worthwhile and desirable investment has collapsed with only a few months to go before the predicted sell-off date. Matters have become worse for the Secretary of State and the Minister following the Prime Minister's magisterial rebuke in February over their handling, or mishandling, of the issue.
This colossal and vital Bill has been guillotined at every stage. It was curtailed in Committee and on Report, and today, as we are presented with 341 amendments from the other place, debate is curtailed again, less than a week since the other place finished considering the Bill. We shall have a mere day and a half in which to debate 341 amendments and to try to amend some of them. I thank the Minister for having the courtesy and for taking the


trouble to give us sight of the amendments as early as possible. I place on record our appreciation of that. His task was obviously incredibly difficult because he was able to provide information to us only as late as Wednesday evening of last week. Had it been provided to us any later, the opportunity for the Opposition to consider and table subsequent amendments would not have existed. That is not acceptable and I have no doubt that others outside the House will perceive that to be so.
The real reason for guillotining this stage of the Bill's consideration is that this is one of the most damaging pieces of legislation around, and the Government want it out of the way as quickly as possible. On every occasion on which the Bill is discussed in Parliament and outside, damage is done to the Government's credibility. I assure the Government that the fact that they may be curtailing debate today and tomorrow does not mean that the issue will go away or that the Labour party will stop opposing it and campaigning against it in the country over the weeks, months and years between now and the next general election.
We have a day and a half, and a number of important questions remain to be asked. I almost said "answered", but I suspect that there is little, if any, hope of getting answers to some of the questions. For example, when will the British people's drinking water meet minimum European standards? Almost 11 million British people are served with water that is below European minimum standards. The position for those people is unsatisfactory and it is likely to remain so.
The Minister went to Brussels last week. There was some publicity in advance of his visit, but almost a cloak of secrecy has been drawn over what happened while he was there. Almost uniquely for the Government and for the Minister's Department, there has been no press statement or announcement following his discussions with the Environment Commissioner Carlo Ripa Di Meana. That suggests that relations are not what they might be between the Government and the Commissioner about the provisions in the Bill.
No doubt the Government will later attempt to overturn an amendment carried in the House of Lords that provides for a date of 1993, already several years late, to meet the objectives for drinking water quality. We look forward to hearing from Ministers why they cannot accept even that modest attempt to put matters right. Indeed, I wonder whether the guillotine will allow time for a proper and adequate debate on that matter.
—When will we hear more from the Government—they have not yet answered our questions—about the drinking water inspectorate? The House is entitled to some meaningful details about the operation of that body, hidden away somewhere in the Department of the Environment, whose job it will be to regulate the quality of our drinking water. As yet, there have been almost no details about that body.
When will we hear the final decisions and the whole truth about the so-called cost pass-through—that provision in the appointment to allow companies to make extra charges outside the price control formula? We all remember the Secretary of State's claim at the outset that

prices would rise in real terms by no more than 10 per cent. a year. That is obviously a hopelessly inadequate assessment of what the public will face.
At the end of Third Reading, in a speech when the Minister read out everything except the London telephone directory, he said that my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff did not mention the water industry in his memoirs. I wonder whether the Secretary of State will mention this Bill in his memoirs when he comes to write them. I doubt it. I do not think that he will regard the past eight months as a purple passage in his parliamentary and ministerial careers.
What about the flotation itself? Some kind, anonymous person today sent us a copy of a document produced by J. Henry Schroder Wagg and Company Limited, the Government's advisers on the flotation, entitled "Offer Structure". The document sets out the advice that is no doubt being given to Ministers about the structure of the offer and the flotation of the nation's water assets. Unlike previous flotations, the document recommends:
There will be no maximum application value for the separate offers.
The Government are obviously so concerned to ensure that they receive at least some offers to purchase that they are not setting a limit. The document continues:
the Stock Exchange has agreed that neither form of prospectus need be advertised in the national press; only application forms".
Presumably, the Government do not want to advertise the prospectus because they do not want people to know exactly what it is they are being invited to buy.
I do not have time to read all the document into the record, but on page 4 it states:
The need to underwrite all ten offers is expected to give rise to some new variations on the now familiar structure.
Early investigation suggests that the UK underwriting unit may be worth between £10,000 and £25,000, representing between 8 and 20 package units each comprising 1,000 shares in the ten WSHCs.
In other words, underwriters will be obliged to buy shares in all 10 water authorities whether or not they want to do so.
Underwriters, like the rest of us, know very well that some of the water organisations are not saleable. Who, left to his own devices, would buy North West Water, Yorkshire Water, or some of the other authorities that have huge backlogs of problems in respect of pollution, inadequate plant and collapsing infrastructure? The authorities will be sold off to the underwriters in little parcels, so there will be no escape.
I wonder what Mr. Roy Watt of Thames Water thinks about his organisation being underwritten along with all those less saleable assets? Even the fund managers themselves do not want that to be done, as a poll published yesterday confirms. Seventy-nine per cent. of them want to pick and choose which water authority stock they underwrite because they, too, know that otherwise they are likely to be left with unsold stock on their hands.
Perhaps the most amusing and revealing part of the document is the outline offer timetable on page 6, which is a far more important timetable than that which the Government are talking about today in connection with the Lords amendments. The outline timetable begins:
1st September. VESTING
6th September. Earliest date for launch of flotation marketing campaign.
2nd October. Institutional lunches and dinners begin.


Some underwriters are about to find out that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The outline continues:
31st October. All documentation in near final form.
1st November. Publication of pathfinder prospectus.
2nd November. Commencement of national and regional roadshows.
21st November. Pricing meeting. Completion meeting.
22nd November. IMPACT DAY
29th November. Prospectuses generally available.
6th December. OFFER CLOSES.
12th December. Basis of allocation announced …
20th December. Posting of documents of title…
So for the man who has everything, at Christmas this year buy him a sewage works.
Given the taxpayers' interest, the national interest and the environmental interest in water privatisation, that timetable is far more important than the fatuous, shoddy little timetable that we are debating.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to other right hon. and hon. Members who have not been so privileged as to see the document from which he quotes—it sounds as though the hon. Gentleman is indulging in mere variations on its theme—whether that document is confidential. Was the advice that it contains given confidentially? When the hon. Gentleman becomes a Minister in some future Labour Administration, what action will he take if private and confidential advice is leaked in the same way?

Dr. Cunningham: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's last question first. The action that I shall take as a Minister will be to support in the Lobby at the earliest opportunity a freedom of information Bill.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The hon. Gentleman will lose his job if he does.

Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State says that I would lose my shirt, and he is wrong about that, too. A freedom of information Bill is one of the Labour party's principal commitments. On matters concerning environmental pollution, the British public will never be satisfied until all the facts and information are honestly and accurately presented to them. Ministers would be far better advised to be more candid about the problems of this hopeless legislation than to sit there baying their opposition to a freedom of information Bill.
Let me return to the first question asked by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). He is welcome to a copy of this document if he would like one. As I said, it is headed
J. Henry Schroder Wagg and Co. Limited … Offer Structure".
It says nothing about confidentiality or secrecy. I have no idea of the origins of the document; I am not claiming that it is a leak from the Civil Service, or even that it is a Government document. It is an interesting document, however, and one about which people are entitled to know.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: As the water stock will be no-growth because there will be so little opportunity for development, will not high dividends have to be paid to the investing public? Will not water charges have to reflect an exorbitant level of dividends as, in effect, the value of the company will not increase?

Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis. Moreover, because of the problems that need to be resolved, there will be additional increases in the cost to water consumers.
Whatever the time available for our deliberations today and tomorrow, the Government will never be able to guillotine public opinion. They cannot guillotine the views of the City, or its huge and adverse reaction to the proposals. However hard they may try, they cannot guillotine the European Commissioner and the views in Europe about the inadequacies of the Bill; nor will they be able to guillotine the environmental damage and pollution problems inherent in the legislation, especially as it contains a provision to excuse private enterprise water monopolies from polluting the environment and to give them immunity from prosecution.
The Government cannot guillotine our emphatic opposition to the legislation or the political reaction against them when they come to explain all this at the polling station—and fail.

Mr. Keith Raffan: It is difficult to take seriously the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) when he describes the Bill as one of the most damaging pieces of legislation. It has been widely credited—even by Opposition Members—with containing significant environmental advances, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well. His hon. Friends who were not members of the Standing Committee and clearly have never read the Bill and do not appreciate the long period of gestation before it was published may talk in gimmicky-slogan terms. The fact is, however, that the Bill represents important environmental advances.
The first main advance, alluded to briefly by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, is the ending of the position where water authorities are both poacher and gamekeeper. When the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs looked into coastal sewage pollution in 1985, one of the main points on which Opposition Members —not at parliamentary level, but at local government level—petitioned us was the need to end that position. They said that there was no way in which water authorities could monitor sewage discharges effectively when they were discharging sewage themselves.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raffan: Not now.
The setting up of a National Rivers Authority will therefore create a position that Labour Members have long requested. That is the first significant environmental advance in the Bill.
The second is one to which Opposition Members would not be expected to allude. The water authorities. as water companies, will automatically be freed from the restraint of Government external financing limits. In plain language, that means that they will not have to compete with other Government Departments for finance for important capital expenditure on water infrastructure and sewage works. Opposition Members do not refer to that because the last Labour Government cut capital spending on water infrastructure by a third and on sewerage infrastructure by a half. Let me respond directly to the point made by the hon. Member for Copeland.


Compliance by 1993 might have been possible but for the gross, inexcusable and highly irresponsible neglect of the last Labour Government who slashed capital spending on water infrastructure by a third and on sewerage infrastructure by a half.
I do not want to indulge during my brief speech in non-parliamentary language, but what the hon. Gentleman said was bordering on hypocrisy. I do not think that that word is outside the parliamentary code.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raffan: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a second, if he will sit down for a moment. I am sure that he does not want to hear this, but he is going to hear it, whether he likes it or not.
It is time that the Opposition and the country heard these things. If the quality of our water is not as good as it should be, although it is improving, and if our beaches are not of as good a quality as they should be, although they, too, are improving, the responsibility and the blame lie with the Opposition for their gross neglect during their period in office.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, because he has obviously been sleeping for some time, how long the Conservative Government have been in power and why they did not do something about the problem long before this?

Mr. Raffan: That is the kind of weak intervention which one would expect from the hon. Gentleman. I am not quite sure why he is not on the Opposition Front Bench today. Perhaps he has been demoted. Capital expenditure on the water infrastructure has been steadily increased during the last 10 years to make up for the gross neglect of the Opposition when they were in power. They ought to give credit to the Government for the two significant environmental advances that are included in the Bill. They will be of major importance to all water consumers.
In his normal spirit of generosity, which those of us who were members of the Standing Committee came to expect, my hon. and learned Friend alluded in his speech only to the number of hours in both Houses that have been devoted to the Bill. He did not refer to the tidal wave—to continue my watery metaphor—of irrelevant points that were made by Opposition Members in Committee. Today the Opposition have complained about the time for debate being restricted, yet they wasted so much of their time in Committee. The hon. Member for Copeland referred in Committee to netting 24 salmon with his English setter Sam. I am glad that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is here because he updated us in Committee about the Pol Pot regime in Kampuchea.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raffan: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute. He can wait. He has given us his dissertation. I am not finished yet with the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) told us all about his mother being an Owen and his uncles and aunties being Evanses, about Tommy Steele and "Half a Sixpence", about the landscape of William Tell and about

undrinkable British tea. We had all that from the Opposition, yet they expect us to take them seriously when they ask for more time to debate the Bill. It is a bit rich of them to expect us to provide that when they wasted so much time in the first place.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman has a particularly short, inaccurate and limited memory, as we know from previous exchanges. If he thinks back to our exchanges in Committee about my ability to catch salmon, he will remember that that matter arose only because of the question—I shall not say the allegation—of his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that I am not a salmon fisherman.

Mr. Raffan: That is another lame intervention. I also remember the hon. Gentleman saying to the Chair that he realised that he was being diverted into irrelevancies. We do not think that he is such a weak-minded individual that he cannot resist challenges by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), which are never of a highly provocative nature and which most of us are able to resist. If most of my hon. Friends are able to resist them, surely the hon. Gentleman is not so weak-minded that he cannot resist them.
There have been few pieces of legislation in this Parliament or in the previous Parliament that have had such a long period of gestation. The Government's first mention of water privatisation was as long ago as 1985, after which a consultation document was published. There was then a discussion document, and after the announcement in 1986 there was a White Paper, two consultative papers and wide Government consultation. This led to a manifesto commitment which has been widely ignored by the Opposition.
The Opposition are highly selective. They choose their opinion polls to suit them. One opinion poll which used a far wider sample than that published in The Observer yesterday was the one on 10 June 1987 using a sample of some 25 million people as opposed to just over 1,000 people. We believe in an opinion poll sample of half the electorate while the Opposition pick and choose one of between 800 and 1,000 people. We have a strong manifesto commitment which has been backed by the people. The Government have an absolute right to see the legislation passed through both Houses of Parliament so that it receives Royal Assent in time for privatisation to take place. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister said, by the next general election the new water plcs will be up and running and working extremely effectively. I doubt that it will remain a party political issue for long, and probably will not be raised the next election.
There have been few examples of privatisation for which the argument is stronger than it is for water. Of course the Opposition have conveniently ignored the arguments against them, as they always do, especially the fact that one in four consumers already receives water from private statutory water companies, and therefore from a private source. They receive their water efficiently and they do not complain about its quality. That situation will prevail for everyone in this country after privatisation. We have heard nothing but humbug and hypocrisy from the Opposition. Let us get on with debating the amendments.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) spoke with great virulence, but it was not always clear whether he was waving or drowning.
The Government are in serious difficulty with the Bill for a number of reasons. It is certainly an unpopular Bill. We have heard at length about the opinion poll evidence that the British people are opposed to it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must be aware that many members of the public who are against the Bill have been motivated to write to their Members of Parliament. Many of those people do not normally write to their Members of Parliament. but feel sufficiently strongly about this issue to do so.
The most recent opinion poll shows that four out of five people are still steadfastly opposed to what the Government are doing, while millions of pounds of their money is being spent on promoting the issue on their television screens and on poster hoardings. Perhaps more significant, and of greater concern to Ministers, who have never shown great signs of being worried by public opinion and what ordinary people think, is the fact that six out of 10 fund managers are also opposed to the privatisation of water, certainly until EC standards are met. The experts in the City know a dead duck in the water when they see one. That is what the Government are bringing to the people by producing a Bill which is unpopular and is unlikely to be a success, even in the Government's limited terms.
In response to all that, the Government are not reconsidering whether to go ahead; they are not looking to the British people, or the fund managers if they prefer, and saying, "Maybe we have got something fundamentally wrong." Instead, they squirm around within the Bill looking for ways in which they can reduce the duties that they were originally proposing to place on the water industry in order to buy off their worries and doubts and sell down the river the people who seek improvements in the water industry. At the last minute, an amendment has been sneaked in to wipe the slate clean and to give private water companies immunity from prosecution for at least a year after the sell-off.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: The lion. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) has intervened many times, and there is little time for debate.
The Minister may wish to take into account the strong feelings that have been expressed in my part of the country. Given South West Water's record locally, I suspect that it will experience difficulty in finding buyers. This week, the police will probably be giving the findings of their investigation into the Camelford incident, so it is a poor gesture for the Government to be offering water companies further immunity in order to make the sell-off work. Few people in my part of the world will be satisfied by that. Anyone considering water privatisation would do well to consider what happened to the people of Camelford and the Government's action in offering water companies immunity from prosecution.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: Time is short, so I will not give way.
The Government have stated that they wish to reverse a Lords amendment that aims to bring Britain's drinking

water standards up to EEC standards by 1993, which is already eight years late. The commitments that we thought might he given and the opportunities for change that we expected are receding further into the distance.
The Government propose to legalise thousands of spillages of raw sewage into rivers and streams. One cannot have confidence in a Government who are so sternly led on the water privatisation course by a Prime Minister who is unaware that untreated sewage is being pumped into seas around our coast. More sewage is pumped into the sea in my area than any other throughout the country. I recently spoke at a meeting in my constituency at Gorran Haven, which was organised by local residents who by no means are stern opponents of the Government. The water authority attended to present its case. My constituents still see water being polluted by raw sewage and must still pull their children out of the water when they see turds floating in the sea. The most striking aspect of that meeting was the feeling that such pollution needed to be tackled and that the Government's approach was fundamentally wrong. People of all backgrounds and political persuasions rightly believed that the Government's approach was fundamentally wrong.
Once again, debate is being guillotined, as it has been throughout every stage of the water privatisation proposals, thereby not only putting private profit before public debate but gagging debate on the Bill. That is not acceptable, but it should come as no surprise as the Minister, despite all his soft words, knows that he does not carry the British people with him. However much the Government cut debate and rush the Bill through, they do not and will not carry the British people with them. People in my part of the country are rising up and saying that they want public investment to solve public problems. They are clear that the pollution of our seas and water courses and the trouble that we have had with our water authority are not private but public problems. Nothing that the Minister does in selling off water authorities will change their opinion.

Mr. Leigh: I thought that a hint of desperation entered the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). I would be desperate if my party went down to 7 per cent. in the opinion polls.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: It is down to 3 per cent. in the Boy Scouts' poll.

Mr. Leigh: I will not add to my hon. Friend's comment. Unfortunately, he is disbarred from speaking in this debate. He would bring great knowledge to it, particularly about salmon fishing.
The Liberal party is not doing well because it has lost much of its green vote. Once the Bill becomes an Act we shall recoup much of the ground which, according to the Opposition, we may have lost. Fundamentally, this is a green Bill. It is a matter of pride to Conservative Members that we are setting up, for the first time, a national environmental protection agency.

Mr. Geraint Howells: What about the blue vote?

Mr. Leigh: At the next general election it will be clear that the Conservatives have not lost any support because of the Bill. As Bills go through it is necessary for the


Government to explain their case. Sometimes people are genuinely worried about a radical measure, but once this Bill becomes an Act and people see how things settle down, they will come to thank the Government because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) has said, for the first time the gamekeeper-poacher problem has been tackled.
I shall not deal with the financial record of the previous Labour Government, but the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) failed to answer some questions. No doubt the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), as an upwardly mobile member of the Labour party, will answer them when she replies on behalf of the Opposition.
This is a green, environmental Bill. Perhaps the hon. Member for Dewsbury will tell us why the Labour Government failed to list a single bathing beach for the purposes of the 1975 bathing waters directive. Can she explain why Labour took no action to implement part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974? Perhaps she will explain why the previous Labour Government prevented members of the public from initiating prosecutions of river polluters. I note that the hon. Lady is busy talking to her hon. Friends on the Front Bench. It is clear that she does not want to explain, but the House wants answers. We are the green party because we are setting up an environmental protection agency. It is no good the hon. Lady looking round desperately as I have a couple of other questions for her. How did the previous Labour Government discharge their responsibilities for monitoring involuntary pollution by sewage treatment works when they kept no record of the adequacy of their performance?

Ms. Joan Walley: rose—

Mr. Leigh: I shall give way with pleasure, but can the hon. Lady explain why the Labour Government kept the details of discharge consent applications secret from the public and refused to allow the public to participate in the process of granting them?

Ms. Walley: As the hon. Gentleman has claimed that the Conservative party represents green votes, will he admit that the only thing that is green about this Bill are the green worms that came through London's tap water and the people whose hair turned green in Camelford as a result of aluminium poisoning? What has he got to say about that?

Mr. Leigh: If the hon. Lady wants to be a member of the next Labour Government she must do much better than that. She must answer the five questions that I put, which were perfectly reasonable. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) is not prepared to answer them, but I hope that the hon. Member for Dewsbury will.
Debates such as this always follow the same pattern. I think that I shall scream if someone again, says that, on one day, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) moved five guillotine motions. I accept that it is a good point, but it is always made. Usually the right hon. Gentleman attends such debates, which are, fundamentally, always the same.
If there were a Labour Government in the future and if the hon. Member for Dewsbury decided to renationalise electricity, water and British Telecom and, by that stage,

perhaps British Rail and British Coal, would she produce five guillotine motions in one day? We shall have to wait and see.
I believe that I now know something about how Standing Committees work. I was not only a member of the Committee that considered the Water Bill, which sat for more than 150 hours, but a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Self-Governing Schools Etc (Scotland) Bill, which also sat for 150 hours. It was also guillotined and we heard the same arguments as we have heard today. Television is about to enter the Chamber and no doubt it will cover our Standing Committees. It is about time, therefore—this is a non-party political point—that we considered timetabling Bills from the very start. Once television comes into the Standing Committees, we cannot have the procedures and speeches that we have had not only on this Bill, but on others of whose Committees I have been a member.
I am surprised that no hon. Member has so far mentioned the irrelevant speeches and the speeches on the Tatler of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). When I was a member of the Committee on the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) talked for several hours in his lilting Gaelic on a matter totally irrelevant to the Bill because Labour Members had to prove to the people of this country that they were a powerful, virile Opposition who would continue to speak ad nauseam. As soon as a timetable motion for this Bill was introduced the quality of debate improved markedly, as it did on the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill. I am convinced that we should bring in timetable motions at the beginning of Bills.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister will remember that I tabled several amendments in Committee. I suspect that once the timetable motion has been accepted, there may have been some collusion between the two Front Benches.

Mr. Soames: No, surely not.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) says no. However, once a Bill has been timetabled, it is far easier for the Front-Bench spokesmen to ensure that the main Labour party amendments are discussed. It keeps them happy, and they can then go to their constituents and say that they are doing their job. However, serious amendments tabled by Conservative Back-Bench Members, which do not make a party political point, but merely wish to improve the Bill, are frozen out. If Bills are to be timetabled regularly, it should be done near the beginning of the Bill. In addition, the Chairman should be given more authority in deciding how the Bill should be split up so that Conservative, Labour and minor party Back-Bench Members are given time to debate the Bill.
In principle, after so much time has been devoted to the Bill, there is no reason why we should not have a timetable motion. Most of the amendments that we are to discuss today are technical. On that basis, I support the timetable motion. My plea to my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench is for them to consider for next year, once our proceedings are televised, whether Bills should be timetabled far earlier.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The hon. Members for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) are kidding themselves if they believe that this is a green Bill as it does nothing to solve the problems facing the water industry. They know that they will pay the price for this legislation at the next general election, not only because of the Bill's unpopularity, as shown in the opinion poll, but because it will not deal with the problems facing the water industry.
The timetable motion is outrageous in that it seeks to limit our ability to debate the many important principles that we still need time to consider adequately. As I have said several times recently, the Government increasingly dislike democracy and the opportunity for debate because they do not want people to have the opportunity to voice opinions in any way different from their own. So long as they remain in power, democracy will become a sham as they remove the opportunity for genuine debate.

Mr. Paul Boateng: It is already a sham.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend says that it has already become a sham, and to some extent he is right.
The hon. Member for Delyn also referred to the National Rivers Authority. He must remember that Labour Members never opposed the establishment of that authority. From the outset we have accepted that it is right that the roles of poacher and gamekeeper should be separated. We have said, however—and we shall say it again tomorrow—that if the Government are serious about the N RA, they should give it the powers to carry out the functions for which it is being established. We know that steps are already being taken to remove the ability of the NRA to prosecute water authorities for sewage pollution once privatisation takes place and that there will be derogations and exemptions. Already, the Government are trying to remove the authority's teeth.
The hon. Member for Delyn also referred to investment and said that the last Labour Government reduced investment. I have never denied that. Like the Minister and other Conservative Members, however, he failed to point out that as the Government have been in office for 10 years they must accept responsibility for the fact that investment in the water industry, in real terms, is still only two thirds what it was in the mid-1970s.
The Government must also accept that the Select Committee on the Environment proposed a National Rivers Authority and referred to the investment problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Delyn and the clash with the public sector borrowing requirement. The Select Committee suggested changing the borrowing powers of the water industry and allowing it to remain in the public sector. Both the developments that the hon. Member for Delyn regards as important—establishing a National Rivers Authority, and changing the way in which we finance it—could thus have been achieved if the industry had been allowed to remain in the public sector. That would have gained our support because we believe it to be the right way forward. After the many hours of debate on the Bill. it is clear that changing the ownership of the industry will not solve its problems, but that investment in it will. If the Government were prepared to put in the investment to deal with the problems of drinking water quality, river pollution, sewage works and beach pollution, those problems could be solved.
Instead, the Government are considering a long sea outfall at Rossall point at Fleetwood. It is outrageous that the Government believe that long sea outfalls are the right way to deal with sea pollution in 1989 when we should be moving towards constructions that will serve the country well into the 21st century. It is wrong that in 1989 the Government still believe that long sea outfalls are the answer. They simply shift the pollution a little further out to sea, but it will still be washed back on to our shores. That is not an acceptable solution for the next century.
Later this afternoon we shall discuss amendments dealing with land. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said, who would want to buy the North West water authority with the River Mersey and all its problems? The only attraction of buying that water authority lies in selling off its land to make money while removing access to the countryside and the free rights over the land that people enjoy at present.
I have raised the question of appointing a land development officer with the North West water authority, and in questions to the Minister. Brian Alexander the managing director of that authority and its acting chief executive—its former chief executive, who was also its deputy chairman, has been retired, neatly removed, because he opposed privatisation—has replied:
The appointee's role is to look at surplus land to see what development opportunities there may be and, to ensure that we obtain the maximum returns possible from these possibilities.
The next sentence refers to the need
to ensure that we get the best returns from surplus land.

Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech, which is partly a Second Reading speech and partly more appropriate to Committee stage but the hon. Gentleman is not addressing his mind or his speech to the timetable motion. Is it not time that somebody intervened—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I have heard nothing out of order from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).

Mr. Pike: I have been following the arguments of other hon. Members who have spoken. This is one of the important issues that we shall not be able to debate sufficiently because we have only an hour and a half on this important principle.
Many organisations, such as the Ramblers Association, anglers' associations, and many others, are still extremely fearful about the consequences of the legislation.
Tomorrow we shall discuss sewage treatment works and the problems of pollution entering the rivers because the use of storm overflows is exceeding consent and they are being used on too many occasions. We need time to debate such problems, but the Government are afraid to debate them because they know that they are responsible for the present position and that they must accept—

It being one hour after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [6 February.]

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 168.

Division No. 271]
[4.34 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Alison, Rt Hon Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Amess, David


Alexander, Richard
Amos, Alan






Arbuthnot, James
Forth, Eric


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Ashby, David
Freeman, Roger


Aspinwall, Jack
French, Douglas


Atkins, Robert
Fry, Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gale, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gardiner, George


Baldry, Tony
Gill, Christopher


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Batiste, Spencer
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bendall, Vivian
Goodlad, Alastair


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gow, Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boswell, Tim
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grist, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Ground, Patrick


Bowis, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hague, William


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hanley, Jeremy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hannam, John


Brazier, Julian
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bright, Graham
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hayes, Jerry


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayward, Robert


Budgen, Nicholas
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burns, Simon
Heddle, John


Burt, Alistair
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Butcher, John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butler, Chris
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butterfill, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Carrington, Matthew
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carttiss, Michael
Holt, Richard


Cash, William
Hordern, Sir Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howard, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Chope, Christopher
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Churchill, Mr
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunter, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Conway, Derek
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jackson, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Janman, Tim


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Couchman, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Critchley, Julian
Key, Robert


Curry, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knowles, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Knox, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Latham, Michael


Dover, Den
Lawrence, Ivan


Dunn, Bob
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Durant, Tony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dykes, Hugh
Leigti, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Eggar, Tim
Lightbown, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Lilley, Peter


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fallon, Michael
McCrindle, Robert


Favell, Tony
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maclean, David


Forman, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick





Madel, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Major, Rt Hon John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Malins, Humfrey
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Mans, Keith
Shaw, David (Dover)


Maples, John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Marland, Paul
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Marlow, Tony
Shersby, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mates, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maude, Hon Francis
Speller, Tony


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Miller, Sir Hal
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mills, Iain
Squire, Robin


Miscampbell, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Sir David
Stern, Michael


Moate, Roger
Stevens, Lewis


Monro, Sir Hector
Stokes, Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Summerson, Hugo


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mudd, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neubert, Michael
Thorne, Neil


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Norris, Steve
Tracey, Richard


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Trippier, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Paice, James
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Patnick, Irvine
Waldegrave, Hon William


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Walden, George


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Pawsey, James
Waller, Gary


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Portillo, Michael
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Warren, Kenneth


Raffan, Keith
Watts, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wells, Bowen


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, John


Redwood, John
Whitney, Ray


Renton, Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Rhodes James, Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


Riddick, Graham
Wilshire, David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Roe, Mrs Marion
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rost, Peter



Rowe, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Ryder, Richard
Mr. Alan Howarth.


Sackville, Hon Tom



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Buckley, George J.


Armstrong, Hilary
Caborn, Richard


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Callaghan, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Canavan, Dennis


Battle, John
Cartwright, John


Beckett, Margaret
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beith, A. J.
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bidwell, Sydney
Clay, Bob


Boateng, Paul
Clelland, David


Boyes, Roland
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bradley, Keith
Cohen, Harry






Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Madden, Max


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cousins, Jim
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cox, Tom
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Crowther, Stan
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cryer, Bob
Martlew, Eric


Cunningham, Dr John
Maxton, John


Dalyell, Tarn
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Darling, Alistair
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Meale, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michael, Alun


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dewar, Donald
Morgan, Rhodri


Dixon, Don
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dobson, Frank
Mullin, Chris


Doran, Frank
Murphy, Paul


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Nellist, Dave


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
O'Brien, William


Evans, John (St Helens N)
O'Neill, Martin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Pendry, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Pike, Peter L.


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Flynn, Paul
Prescott, John


Foster, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Foulkes, George
Randall, Stuart


Fraser, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Fyfe, Maria
Reid, Dr John


Galloway, George
Richardson, Jo


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Robertson, George


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Rogers, Allan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rooker, Jeff


Gould, Bryan
Sedgemore, Brian


Graham, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Grocott, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Harman, Ms Harriet
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Haynes, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Henderson, Doug
Snape, Peter


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Soley, Clive


Hood, Jimmy
Steinberg, Gerry


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Stott, Roger


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Strang, Gavin


Howells, Geraint
Straw, Jack


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Turner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Vaz, Keith


Ingram, Adam
Wall, Pat


Janner, Greville
Wallace, James


Jones, Barry (Alyn S Deeside)
Walley, Joan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Kennedy, Charles
Wareing, Robert N.


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Wigley, Dafydd


Livingstone, Ken
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wilson, Brian


McAllion, John
Winnick, David


McAvoy, Thomas
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McCartney, Ian
Worthington, Tony


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wray, Jimmy


McFall, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)



McKelvey, William
Tellers for the Noes:


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. Ken Eastham and


McWilliam, John
Mrs. Llin Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Water Bill

1ST ALLOTTED DAY

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

REGIONAL RIVERS ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 34, after "committees" insert,
consisting of persons who are not members of the Authority,

The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2, 146 and 147.

Mr. Howard: The amendments are concerned with the membership of the National Rivers Authority's three regional committees—the rivers advisory committee, the flood defence committee and the fisheries advisory committee—and ensure that the membership of the NRA board will not overlap with the membership of those committees.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Clause 4

TRANSFER OF THE WATER AUTHORITIES' FUNCTIONS ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 4, line 10, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
(3) The Secretary of State shall, by order made before the transfer date, nominate a company in relation to each water authority as that authority's successor company; but a company shall not be so nominated unless it is a limited company and, at the time when the order is made, is wholly owned by the Crown.

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 9, 11, 12, 36, 37, 56, 60, 61, 65 to 74, 78, 81 to 85, 88, 97, 98, 128, 129, 133, 137 to 144, 153, 154, 162 to 165, 167 to 170, 173 to 175, 179 to 181, 185, 186, 189, 191, 192, 206, 207, 211, 212, 229 to 232, 241 to 248, 278 to 282, 284, 287 to 289, 291, 292, 294, 297 to 301, 303 to 311, 313 to 316, 321, 322, 324 to 333, 335 to 341.

Mr. Howard: The amendments in this group are purely technical. I am sure that the House would not wish me to dwell on them, although I should be happy to answer any points which hon. Members might wish to raise.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6

CUSTOMER SERVICE COMMITTEES

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 20, leave out subsection (1).

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Mr. Howard: The purpose of the amendments is to make it absolutely clear that it is a duty of the director general to establish and maintain customer service committees and to allocate companies to those committees. I commend the amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 7

GENERAL DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE SERVICES

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 6, line 33, leave out "or 71" and insert
, 71 or (duty to move pipes etc, in certain cases)

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 161.

Mr. Howard: This new clause, after clause 155 and the consequential amendment to clause 7, will require a water and sewerage undertaker to alter or to remove its pipes in response to a reasonable request by any person with an interest in the land where the pipe is installed or adjacent land. The person may require the pipes to be altered or moved if that is necessary to develop the land in question. The new clause therefore goes a long way to ensuring that the presence of undertakers' pipes on private land does not unreasonably hinder development. An undertaker will be able to recover from the person any expenses reasonably incurred in carrying out the works involved. I commend the amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 7, line 12, after "particular," insert
that the interests of customers and potential customers in rural areas are so protected and

Read a Second time.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), to leave out second 'and' and insert
`such that charges for domestic consumers are at the same level for the same level of service throughout the area supplied or serviced by any undertaker, and'.
As I understand it, Lords amendment No. 13 is a concession which arises from the debate in another place when some of my noble Friends and also some Conservative peers expressed concern about the possibility of differential charging for rural consumers. An amendment was moved in the other place and lost by only two votes. It would have ensured that charges to consumers in rural areas were the same as those for consumers in urban areas. The amendment, which was so narrowly lost, is similar in terms to amendment (a).
Amendment No. 13 falls short of ensuring that prices will be standard in any one area, merely placing the director general under a duty to take account of the interests of rural consumers when assessing whether there

has been any undue discrimination between consumers in a proposed charging scheme by an undertaker. The words "take account" are not strong enough to guarantee that the interests of rural consumers or other consumers are properly safeguarded.
Ministers in another place repeated pledges given to us in Committee that there should be no discrimination at all against one type of consumer, be it a rural consumer or any other consumer. The Minister made it clear, however, that the present concession in amendment No. 13 did not represent a standard charge for a standard level of service—hence our amendment (a) to tighten the matter up and to ensure that the principle of equity is followed in the charging policy.
Opposition Members believe that the supply of water and the disposal of sewage is important not only for individuals and families but for all of us. It is in everyone's interests that we should all have proper services, for obvious public health reasons, and it is particularly important to establish principles of fairness in charging. We know what is likely to happen to prices generally as a result of privatisation. Everyone, except Ministers speaking in public—I suspect that some are franker when speaking in private—accepts that prices will rise as a result of privatisation.
Ministers have often sought to give assurances about what will happen to prices following privatisation. For example, we have been told that the Director General of Water Services will decide everything and will look after the consumer, and that the new theory of comparative competition will ensure that the consumer gets a fair bill. I should happily give way to the junior Minister—the Minister with responsibility for sport—were he here, so that he could give us another entertaining session. His struggles to define the theory of comparative competition are about as convincing as the Secretary of State's assurances that prices will rise no more than 7·5 per cent. to 12–5 per cent. by the end of the century. That is what the Secretary of State told us last year on Second Reading.
Of course, that was before we had the latest round of increases in water authority charges—increases that averaged 10 per cent., in many instances, concealing much higher increases. For example, in Yorkshire not only was the average increase nearly 33 per cent. higher than that, which was hard to disguise, but the balance of charging is changing in many water authority areas. Those with a lower rateable value property have seen increases far higher than those with high rateable values. As in Yorkshire, there have been additional increases—increases in standing charges of about 33 per cent. It is easy to see where the sting is and where the real hardship will be caused because of the increases already in the pipeline.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Has my hon. Friend seen recent reports in the Isle of Wight, where bills are now being delivered as a result of metering tests being conducted there and elsewhere? Bills that are two, three and four times the previous size are now hitting the doormats. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who intervened in a vitriolic and trivial way, is not present to explain that to his constituents.

Mrs. Taylor: The whole House would have enjoyed the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) explaining the impact of metering in his constituency. All the information on metering that we


have had so far shows that we were right to move our amendment in Committee, saying that there should be no compulsory metering of anybody's property. The metering experiments currently taking place do not take account of all the heavy fixed charges associated with metering. Many people are in for a severe shock when they realise what they will have to pay if metering is introduced.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Lady mentioned the substantially increased charges that may be incurred through the introduction of metering. Given that the legislation has stated that there is a responsibility for charges to reflect costs, is there not a real danger that if an authority decides to have cost centres which subdivide its area, areas with the highest costs will lead to a higher charge? That is the very reason why we need the amendment.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is quite right. That is one of the dangers of the legislation and the proposals on how things will work after privatisation. There is also the possibility that investment will not take place in areas which have the greatest problems. That could also affect the level of later charges and discrimination in charges.
I am glad that the Minister for Water and Planning is here to reply to the debate. During the earlier part of the year we had a most entertaining few weeks with the Minister telling us—with as near straight a face as he could manage—that he was appalled by the increases in water charges being proposed by statutory water companies. He firmly told us that he intended to stop them, that he would lay down the law and act the bully to tell statutory water companies what they should do. As it worked out, meetings took place and the Minister saw some of the chairmen of the statutory water companies. They not only told him where to get off but they clearly told the public that the severity of the price increases that they were imposing was a straightforward result of the privatisation proposals. Far from the water companies being savaged by the Minister, we saw the Minister squirming in his attempt to prove that increases of up to 42 per cent. could have been even worse but for his intervention. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister has said that the matter has been badly dealt with.

Mr. Howard: Is it because the hon. Lady thought that the increases levied by the statutory water companies were so admirable that her party voted for them to be the model for privatisation in another place?

5 pm

Mrs. Taylor: The Minister well knows that what was said in another place was that that was not our preferred option. It would, however, have meant the end of the privatisation proposals. We made no bones about the fact that we did not like the proposal, but anything that would have scuppered the Bill was worthy of support.

Mr. Edward Leigh: That is an interesting question which we should look into further. Does not the very ease with which the statutory water companies put up their charges prove that that is not a model that we should follow, whatever our views on the rightness or wrongness of the Bill? Will the hon. Lady comment on that?

Mrs. Taylor: It is not the ideal model to follow, but the reason why the statutory water companies put up their prices by such significant amounts was the reason that they made clear to their consumers and to the public. It was because of the consequences of the Government's privatisation proposals. It is clear that what has happened with the statutory water companies so far this year will happen to other water consumers as time goes by if the water authorities are pushed into the private sector.
It is important to have that background to the starting point of prices in the water industry. We have seen significant increases this year, but there is far worse to come for all of us as water consumers. One reason why the amendment is important is that it will ensure at least some fairness in the treatment of consumers.
One interesting aspect of working on the Bill during the last year has been the amount of interest in the legislation from many different quarters. That is why, when it comes to estimating the impact of the legislation or its cost, we have an impressive array of advice, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has quoted. One recent report on the financial impact of privatisation which I recommend to hon. Members has been prepared by an independent expert—an accountant—who has worked in the industry for many years. Mr. Stanley William Hill's work, which has been widely acknowledged by the City and financial journalists, shows clearly that the cost of privatisation alone will add at least 27 per cent. to water charges across the board immediately on privatisation.
That cost includes several items that outraged the public, not least the completely inept and ridiculously expensive advertising campaign upon which, at the Government's insistence, the water authorities have embarked. It is outrageous for Ministers still to claim that that water advertising campaign has nothing to do with them. I do not believe that one person in the country would accept as a coincidence the fact that the water authorities have spent as much in one four-week period on television advertising as Coca-Cola, Nescaféand Renault together—what a coincidence that that should happen just when the Government are putting through their privatisation proposals.

Mr. Allan Roberts: It is our money.

Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend said, it is our money. At the moment, the water authorities are still in the public sector. Yet they are behaving as though they were answerable to shareholders and as though they might sell more water as a result of their advertisements.
Mr. Hill's estimate ties in very much with other estimates which have been given in another place. The Conservative peer, Lord Nugent, estimated that the first year increases in prices as a result of privatisation would be between 30 and 40 per cent. That was the estimate of a Conservative peer, not of any Labour spokesman. All that is before we take into account the costs of investment to improve the service, whether as a result of EEC directives, which we shall be discussing later, or of the backlog of problems and liabilities being faced by the industry.
The backcloth of prices is not optimistic. The increases that we shall be facing may fall more harshly on certain types of consumer. I have mentioned the pricing policy adopted this year by Yorkshire Water. There are also the


problems with metering and the possibility of discrimination against rural consumers or, indeed, any consumers in high-cost areas. Those may include regions which have a large backlog of liabilities and may be forced to pay disproportionately for improvements within their areas.
The Minister could tell us a lot about pricing post-privatisation. I expect that we shall get all the critical announcements on prices once the legislation has gone through and, possibly, only once the House has risen for the summer recess. The Minister could tell us now the basis for K for the next 10 years if he chose to do so. All the discussions have taken place and recommendations have been made and discussed with the existing water authorities. I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming during our debate and tell us what the likely levels of K will be. We spent some time in Committee talking about K, but I hope that the Minister will tell us more about how cost pass-through will operate, because that is just as important. As the Bill is written, and as we have discussed it on several occasions, cost pass-through should be allowed only for new and unforeseen circumstances, not for existing liabilities which have not been met. Yet in an answer to me recently the Minister made it clear that the Director General of Water Services could take into account with regard to cost pass-through our existing commitments to the EEC, simply because those liabilities have not yet been budgeted or accounted for and plans have not been made. That would be an abuse of cost pass-through, but I believe that the Government are looking to move in that direction to disguise the real level of K that is necessary to go ahead with the Government's plans.
One other issue that I hope the Minister will deal with is very relevant to the amendment that he will be moving, because it concerns potential consumers. Amendment No. 13 refers to existing and potential consumers. I hope that the Minister will tell us a little more about his plans for the connection charge for water services after privatisation. On 11 May, after the Bill had left the House, the Minister announced that a new scheme of connection charges was to be drawn up. That is a completely new scheme which has not been discussed in the House. We have not as yet seen the full details of the scheme, and we do not know—nor do the builders involved know—when payments will have to be made, whether they will have to be made when the builder applies for a service for a particular site or after the houses have been built. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the likely connection charges will be. In the initial statement, it was said that the connection charge would be about £800 on average, but investigations have shown that some water authorities are thinking of charging an average of about £2,000, or even more in certain circumstances. That would obviously have an impact either on the price of housing or on the production of houses, if builders found it difficult to absorb that cost.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I think that the hon. Lady is in danger of misinforming the House. We discussed the scheme in Committee because I tabled and moved an amendment bearing on it. The hon. Lady is clearly right to say that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister did not put the scheme forward to take account

of her argument. Does she agree that it is fair that the developer, rather than existing water consumers, should pay a one-off charge to cover capital costs?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman said that I was wrong to suggest that the scheme had not been discussed. He then acknowledged that I was right to suggest that it had not been discussed. I accept that he raised the issue in Committee, but at that stage—not surprisingly—the Minister chose not to give us any information. Instead, he held a press conference, or issued a press release, at a later stage. I cannot talk about the details of the scheme because the Minister has not been forthcoming with the details. I am only asking the Minister, for once, to clarify what he is proposing. People who are not necessarily the natural allies of the Labour party—for instance, the Building Employers Confederation—are extremely worried about what the Minister is proposing and would like more information. Local authorities and housing associations which are still trying to build homes, despite the difficulties put in their way by the Government, would like to know what is to happen about connection charges. The Minister has said that there will be full consultation, but, as I understand it, there has been little consultation so far. Even the Building Employers Confederation is extremely worried about the Government's proposals.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: rose—

Mrs. Taylor: No, I shall not give way. We are running short of time and I must get on.
I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government intend to add new sums to the local authorities' capital allocation programme and to the funding of housing associations to take account of the new costs which will fall especially heavily on first-time buyers and purchasers of small properties. If we are talking about £2,000 as an addition to the cost of a small terraced house in Yorkshire, that will be a significant proportion of the final price. I hope that the Minister can tell us that more money will be made available to local authorities if they are to be faced with costs of that kind.
The public are well aware that privatisation of the water industry is likely to lead to a reduction in standards and an increase in charges. All that has happened in the past year points in that direction, as does every financial survey and economic study of the industry. Privatisation will cost ordinary consumers a great deal of money. We want a water industry which is accountable to consumers, not one which is accountable to shareholders. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his position.

Mr. Howard: I invite the House to agree with Lords amendments Nos. 13 and 15 and to reject amendment (a). Before I explain the effect of the amendments which were passed in another place and the reasons why I think that it would be unwise to accept the Opposition's amendment, it is important that we all understand the context in which the amendments fall to be considered.
The unavoidable fact, much though the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) would like to avoid it and much though she wriggled in answer to my questions and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), is that when the Bill was being considered in another place the Opposition voted for the removal of all price control measures. It avails the Opposition nothing to pretend today to be the friend of


consumers when they voted in another place for the removal of the price control measures which afford consumers safeguards for the pricing of water and for the circumstances in which services are to be provided by the new water companies from which consumers will benefit greatly.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister is coming up with a remarkable answer to what happened in another place. Had the relevant amendment secured a majority in that place, the Government would have been defeated and would have dropped the Bill. I can think of no better service to consumers than to kill the entire Bill.

Mr. Howard: I do not know how the hon. Lady can speculate on what the Government's reaction would have been if the amendment had been passed. It is clear from what she has said that, if there is any hope of defeating the Government in a Division, any protection for the consumer will go out of the window along with any sensible measure of price control. Apparently the Opposition will vote for anything if they think that it will lead to some embarrassment for the Government. That is a scandalous admission. It says more about the irresponsibility of the Labour party than volumes of pretended concern for consumers who will be anxious to obtain the services of the industry under the improved terms and conditions that will result from the Bill.
I turn to the amendments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services have a general duty under clause 7(3)(a) to use their regulatory powers under part I of chapter II so as to ensure that customers' interests in respect of charges are protected and that, in particular, there is no undue discrimination or undue preference shown by undertakers in fixing charges. That duty already provides the basis for a robust framework of consumer protection. Amendment No. 13 supplements the duty by requiring that, in particular, the interests of customers in rural areas are to be protected.

Mr. Wigley: As I said in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), under this Bill a company could reasonably argue that it was not discriminating against rural areas if the ratio of the cost of provision of service to the charge was the same in a rural area as in an urban area. That could lead to a gross difference in the charges being levied. Will the Minister apply himself to that?

Mr. Howard: The point of amendment No. 13 is that, should any company come forward with any proposition of that sort in future, the director general would have to consider it against the general duty to prevent discrimination. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument that, in the way in which he formulated the approach, the general duty to prevent discrimination conceivably might not be enough to defeat such a proposition. The effect of the amendment is that the director general will have a duty, in addition, to protect the interest of rural consumers. It is against that background that any proposition of the sort referred to by the hon. Gentleman would have to be considered. A direct consequence of the amendment is a substantial additional reinforcement for consumers in rural areas. I have no

doubt that it would be regarded as especially relevant by the director general in the context of any approach such as that to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
Amendment No. 15 would require the Secretary of State and the director general, in the exercise of their duty, to protect customers under clause 7 and to take into account the particular interests of those who are disabled or of pensionable age in respect of the quality of any services provided by a company in the course of carrying out the functions of a water or sewerage undertaker. I commend the amendments to the House.
Amendment (a), which has been tabled by the Labour party, would add a further gloss to amendment No. 13. It would require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the director general, when carrying out their duties under clause 7, to ensure that charges for domestic customers in rural areas are at the same level for the same level of service throughout the area supplied or serviced by any undertaker.
The amendment is both defective and undesirable. What does the same charge for the same level of service actually mean? Does it mean that every customer who receives the same quantity of water at the same pressure should pay the same charge? If so, the water industry would have to introduce very quickly an elaborate water metering system to measure both volume and pressure, in addition to an equally elaborate tariff. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), with his usual perspicacity, no doubt appreciates the force of that point. At the other extreme, does the phrase mean that undertakers would have to introduce a flat-rate, unmeasured charging system for all their domestic customers, regardless of the consumption of each customer?
The Opposition's amendment could have an adverse effect on many customers of water authorities that have adopted a policy of differential charging to alleviate the impact of the anomalies of the domestic rating system. To take just one example, Thames Water makes a rateable value-based sewerage charge at 8·9p per pound of rateable value in the inner area of north London but 19·5p per pound in its western division. That difference of 119 per cent. is intended to allow for the differences in rateable values of similar properties in the two areas to ensure that broadly comparable bills will result. That might well fall foul of amendment (a). The thinking behind amendment (a) is characteristically confused. It would be unworkable and it would not lead to the result that I think the hon. Member for Dewsbury intended.
The hon. Lady raised a number of other matters, with which I shall deal briefly. She referred to some of the consequences of metering, but she knows that metering is not a consequence of either this legislation or of privatisation. It is necessary that water undertakers devise an alternative method of charging for water services on the abolition of domestic rateable values. They have been given up to the year 2000 to come up with an alternative method. Many may wish to consider metering. Indeed, we introduced metering trials because we thought it important that the undertakers should have the advantage of such experience before reaching decisions.
The correspondence pages of newspapers have disclosed widely differing experiences. Many people think metering to be an excellent system, while others have reservations. I do not doubt that the undertakers will


carefully consider the results of those trials before reaching any final decisions about an alternative method of charging.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: If the Minister accepts that there are differences of opinion on the benefits or otherwise of metering, why did he turn down our amendment to ensure that there was no compulsory metering?

Mr. Howard: At the end of the day, the undertakers will have to decide upon an alternative method of charging to the current system, which is based on domestic rateable values. They might decide that metering is the fairest and most sensible system to adopt and they would then need powers to introduce compulsory metering in their areas. That is such an obvious point that I am astonished that the hon. Lady questioned it.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Water authorities already have the necessary powers to introduce compulsory water metering; they were introduced in the paving legislation. Water authorities, such as the North-West water authority, are using those powers for new dwellings.

Mr. Howard: It is true that the undertakers can already use those powers, and they are sensibly doing so for new dwellings. However, they will want to consider the results of the trials before deciding whether metering should be introduced compulsorily throughout the whole of their areas.

Mr. Mullin: The Minister speaks of metering as though it were an academic exercise. In fact, metering has been introduced in a dozen or so areas and the bills are now hitting the doormats. We do not need to speculate: we know that many people are receiving bills two, three or four times higher than their previous bills. How does that square with the Minister's repeated assurances in Committee about the legislation's effect on prices?

Mr. Howard: As I have already said, metering is not a consequence of privatisation; it is an alternative method of charging to that based on domestic rateable value, which is being abolished. Experimental metering is taking place in several parts of the country and we shall benefit from the experience. It is by no means self-evident that water should be treated differently from food, for example, which is paid for on the basis of the amount consumed. Opposition Members appear to regard it as absolutely self-evident that there should be a system of charging for each and every commodity that has absolutely nothing to do with the amount consumed. There is no self-evident rule of law, justice or morals that suggests that people should not pay for such commodities according to the quantities consumed, provided that proper arrangements are made for the least-well-off members of the community. Such arrangements should be made through the social security system and not through some arbitrary method of charging that does not attempt to correlate use and cost.
The hon. Lady referred to some estimates of the likely effect of water privatisation on the prices charged. The estimates are erroneous—as the hon. Lady will realise, no doubt to her acute disappointment, when the prices are announced. She will have to wait a little longer before being given that information.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: What about cost pass-through?

Mr. Howard: Costs will not simply be arbitrarily shifted to cost pass-through. The arrangements for cost pass-through are set out in detail in the licence, which has been available in the Library for some days. It is clear that it is not possible for cost pass-through to be used to deal with matters that were foreseeable from the outset. In some instances the obligation will not have been foreseeable. In some instances, no doubt, the cost of meeting the obligation will not have been foreseeable. Both cost pass-through and benefit pass-through—the mechanism that will give to the companies and their customers a proportion of the proceeds from the disposal of their assets—are intended to deal with unforeseen circumstances. The detailed provisions for that are set out in the draft licence.
The hon. Lady's final point related to connection charges. The introduction of that measure was a typical example of what I referred to during my speech in the guillotine debate earlier—of the Government listening to reasonable and sensible amendments put forward while the Bill was proceeding through Parliament. It was not the Government's intention to introduce that measure, but the arguments put forward in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and others of my hon. Friends were so sensible that I was persuaded that it would improve the Bill.
One of my most enjoyable memories of the Committee stage was the sight of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—the leading Opposition spokesman—in a state of exquisite equivocation as he wondered what on earth to say in response to the sensible proposals put forward by my hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman could not decide what to say or what to do. His was a remarkable speech in a remarkable Committee. We have set out our responses and conclusions, and we are holding consultations before the detailed regulatory arrangements are finalised. We shall of course take into account the views of bodies such as the House-Builders Federation that have a direct interest before final regulations are made.
I invite the House to reject the Opposition's amendment as being undesirable and unworkable, and I commend Lords amendments Nos. 13 and 15.

Mr. Paul Boateng: In his opening remarks, the Minister charged the House—as though addressing a recalcitrant and incredulous jury—that it should take into account the context in which the Lords amendments fall to be considered. My right hon. and hon. Friends want to take the context into account, because it is one in which the City of London has given water privatisation what one respected financial columnist described over the weekend as a "thumbs down". That is the context in which we should consider the Lords amendments and the Minister's rejection of the Opposition amendment to protect and to preserve equity as between the rural and the urban consumer. The Government have brought forward their own sham amendments relating to pricing because they know that the share issue can be successful only if the Government create a situation in which the water industry can exploit its monopoly control over prices to make the flotation attractive to prospective investors.
It is worth while considering the state in which the Government find themselves in relation to their friends in the City. A recent survey by Harris revealed that 59 per cent. of fund managers believe that the domestic water industry should not be privatised before it meets European standards. More than half the fund managers polled expect the dividend yield to exceed 7 per cent., which compares with a current average equity yield of only 4·4 per cent. Meanwhile, 91 per cent. of respondents to the Harris poll have not even set aside specific funds to invest in water. That is the context in which the Lords amendments are presented by the Government and in which they oppose our amendment. The Government are in a blind funk.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: A blind what?

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) mutters and moans in his usual sedentary and stultifying manner. I repeat that Government Members are in a blind funk over what will happen when the water industry is privatised and they seek to float that offer. They do not know what is about to hit them. In their desperation they attempt to preserve a pricing mechanism that will maximise the yield to shareholders.
The great mischief and evil about the Bill is the way in which, in a natural monopoly, it sets the shareholder against the consumer. The Bill creates a situation in which consumer interests in respect of health, safety and water quality will be subordinated to the greed and avarice of shareholders.

Mr. Leigh: Nonsense.

Mr. Boateng: It is no use the hon. Gentleman shouting "Nonsense" because I have described the reality of the position. The Government's amendments are designed to avoid the fiasco that is in store for them.
The Minister can take one crumb of comfort from the Harris opinion poll. I suspect from the glimmer of recognition in his eyes, which those of us who served in Committee came to know all too well, that he has been feasting on that crumb—as well he might. The crumb is that when people were asked to identify the politician responsible for water privatisation, 18 per cent. identified the Secretary of State for the Environment, and only 3 per cent. identified the Minister for Water and Planning. That must be a great comfort to him—certain, as he must be, that his vocation and the Bill are an unmitigated disaster. Only 3 per cent. of the population will blame the Minister, but unfortunately for him it is not the people of this country who will determine his fate in the near future—although they may do so in the medium term. It is her upstairs who will determine the Minister's fate, and she has both him and the Secretary of State for the Environment well in her sights because of the consequences of the disastrous privatisation of the water industry.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman feels better now that he has got that little joke off his chest. The hon. Gentleman referred to a lack of a sense of identity as between shareholders and consumers. How much sense of identity was there between the public authorities, with the Labour Government behind them, and consumers when water prices were bumped up by 40 per cent. in a single year in the 1970s? Is the official view that he is peddling today that the water industry will be

unsaleable because its prices are too low, or saleable because its prices will be too high? It is impossible even for the hon. Gentleman to sustain both propositions.

Mr. Boateng: As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the gap between water prices and the retail price index has increased dramatically under the present Government, whereas under the previous Labour Government it closed. The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely spurious argument.
On the basis of what occurred in Committee and in another place, and of today's proceedings, consumers are right to be fearful of the fact that hidden within factor K is a remedy for increased prices. Factor K gives those who want to acquire the water industry the ability to boost profits, pass on any unforeseen costs, and avoid any risk that might otherwise arise in meeting required European standards. Built into the Government's proposals are practices that are discriminatory as between the urban and rural consumer and that will exploit the water companies' monopoly at every turn. The public know of that, which is why they are overwhelmingly opposed to water privatisation and to the pricing mechanism that the Government try to defend.
Only this morning I received a letter

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I know that my hon. Friend is about to say that this morning he received a letter from the chair of a water authority. Is my hon. Friend aware that over the past five years river and sewage pollution in Yorkshire has doubled, yet the chair of Yorkshire Water spends taxpayers' money hand over fist on advertisements that have got up my constituents' noses? Everyone who has written to me is outraged about the doubling of pollution.

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend has put her finger on the speciousness of the propaganda put out by the chairmen of the water authorities. The letter that I received today from the chairman of Thames Water contained the usual series of anodyne points seeking to justify the unjustifiable—and, one is bound to add, to obscure the truth, which is that there is no way in which consumers will benefit from the sale.
One of the Government's proposals for the price mechanism attempts to buttress the advice already seized upon by Warburg Securities, the Government's broking adviser. Of course, the Government must work hand in hand with the brokers, who are the only people likely to benefit from privatisation. The main selling point for shares that already seem
to have been condemned to slow profit growth
is that
'stable and, probably, highly in elastic demand allied to rising prices make the revenue characteristics of the industry extremely attractive,' says Warburg, making the best of a difficult task.
It is a difficult task, but one thing that we know for certain is that it will be made even more difficult for the consumer who will have to meet the rising prices.
The chairmen of the water authorities have not always spoken with quite the pleasant, reasonable voice with which they purport to speak in the letter. I cannot but refer to the position in the north-west, and to a report that appeared in The Independent on 22 May, headed
Where there's mucky water there may be investors' brass".


That has a familiar ring, when we think of the muck and the worms that now infest our water.
What the chairman of Thames Water says is interesting and worthy of consideration. According to The Independent,
one water authority chairman described it"—
the flotation and purchase of shares in water—
as better than a gilt because it will be inflation-proof, with a little bit of sparkle and risk added by the diversification opportunities—'like safe sex'.
The mind boggles. That we should have sunk to such depths that chairmen of public bodies describe share flotations in terms of safe sex! It raises the spectre of Messrs Howard and Ridley as the Masters and Johnson of water privatisation. They are trying to sell the unsellable, and, whenever possible, to exploit the consumer for the benefit of the shareholder. We shall oppose them at every turn.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: We heard a good deal from the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) in Committee, and were vastly amused by most of what he had to say—especially the bits that related to opera, which constituted the greater part of his speeches. Today, however, he finally told us his real concern, which is not for the consumer but for the shareholder.
The hon. Gentleman gave away the secret at the start of his excellent speech by expressing anxiety about the report that the Bill had received a thumbs-down from the City. It is a bit early for him to worry—the industry has not yet been privatised, so there is hope for his children sitting in the car park about which we heard so much. I advise him to go for the shares when they eventually appear.
5.45 pm
Lords amendment No. 13, which I welcome, is about consumers. We have heard remarkably little from Opposition Members about the consumer's interests. We have not even heard that the director general is to control prices, although that is surely one of the greatest consumer measures ever devised.
My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned another consumer measure—the connection charge. As he kindly said, my hon. Friends and I suggested that in Committee, but apparently the Opposition were not listening at that point. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) got into some difficulties in his speech—it is a great pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman in his place now—because he did not realise that the connection charge was a consumer measure. It is a one-off charge to be paid by developers on new properties to cover the capital costs of water and sewerage services. I will anticipate the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who has a pencil ready to write down her question. The price will come out of the land. If the hon. Lady talks to developers, that is the answer that she will hear from them.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: rose—

Mr. Baker: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to finish as there is not much time.
It is existing consumers who will benefit from the connection charge, and it is right that they should not pay extra capital costs from new developments in their areas, and that the charge should be paid from the new land, with its inflated building costs. The measure will also replace the

section 52 agreements arrived at by many local authorities, and will end uncertainty and some of the less desirable deals done by local authorities and developers involving new capital costs. I therefore reject amendment (a) and reiterate my support, and that of my hon. Friends, for Lords amendment No. 13 which, like so many of the Government's amendments to the Bill, is a consumer-friendly measure.

Mr. Allan Roberts: This has been a wide-ranging debate. The Minister has accused Labour Members in the other place of voting against measures designed to protect the consumer, but that is not possible as there are no such measures in the Bill. The powers of the Director General of Water Services are such that the consumer will be far from protected.
The party of so-called choice is introducing compulsory metering. In Committee, Conservative Members said that they wanted metering. They can have meters now. Metering is not compulsory, so if people choose to have water meters there is nothing wrong with that.
The Minister claims that the likelihood of the introduction of compulsory water metering in many areas has nothing whatever to do with privatisation. He believes that that exonerates the Government from blame. But it has everything to do with the poll tax legislation. If rateable values are abolished by the poll tax legislation, another means of charging has to be found. When compulsory water meters are installed in every home—at a capital cost of £1·6 billion—that will be a good way of providing the private water companies with a licence to print money. The compulsory water meter, which is a direct consequence of the poll tax legislation, is thoroughly unfair, switching the burden of taxation from the rich to the poor, who will be charged for the amount of water that they use.
The Minister extols that fact as a virtue, but the cost of water bears no relation to the amount that is used. Unlike electricity, which is expensive to produce but cheap to distribute, water is cheap to produce but expensive to distribute. As soon as the infrastructure is paid for and the pipes are there to take water to households, people can use twice as much water without it costing the water companies twice as much. The extra cost is negligible. It is the cost of getting the water there in the first place that is the problem. If people economise and use half as much water as their next door neighbours, the water companies will not save half the cost. Once the pipe has been laid and the water provided, the cost has already been met. There are no savings to be made by water metering. If the Government are concerned about economising and getting people to think about saving water, they should do something about the 20 to 30 per cent. of water which is leaking out of an aging system. That is the amount of water that leaves the reservoirs but never reaches people's taps because the system is out of date. The £1·6 billion capital cost of installing meters would be better spent on mending an aging leaking system so that water is no longer wasted.
Water metering is a tax on bath time. Large families will be reluctant to use water to bath their children as often as they should so as to cut down their water bills. The elderly, who already economise on electricity and other forms of energy for heating their homes because they are worried


about the size of their bills, will economise on the use of water as well. They will be reluctant to flush the loo or to bath as often as they would like.
If compulsory water metering is not introduced, the alternative is a water poll tax. That is the prospect that the Government are offering in this Bill, which they say shows their concern for the consumer. There will be a flat rate water charge—another shifting of the burden of costs and taxation from the rich to the poor. North-West Water is determined to introduce compulsory water metering for all industrial and commercial users immediately after privatisation. It is already determined to compel any new dwelling to have a water meter, and it has made plans for the compulsory fitting of water meters over a period of years throughout the whole of its area. North-West Water is not concerned about the consumer. There will he an army of meter readers. Huge capital expenditure will be involved, which will lead to a tax on the use of water—a tax on cleanliness and a switch in the burden of taxation from rich to poor.
With the 27 per cent. price increase that all independent experts have calculated is likely after privatisation, we shall have the Government's disgraceful cut-off regime. The policy statements by the Department of the Environment on disconnections and guaranteed standards of service by private water companies are also a disgrace. The water industry clearly expects an increase in the number of disconnections from the domestic water supply. That is how much the Government care about the consumer. Last year, 9,000 people supplied by water authorities and 6,000 supplied by water companies had their water supply disconnected. The Labour party believes that water disconnection should never be necessary. Water is fundamental to the health and wellbeing of the nation. Giving privately owned monopolies wider scope and greater powers to disconnect customers who have difficulty paying for their water has no place in a civilised society. Yet that is what the Government and the Ministers are proposing. According to their revised code of practice, people on low incomes with a history of payment difficulties will be legally discriminated against. Their case will not be heard in the county courts. It is essential that every water consumer should at least have the option of a county court hearing to explain the circumstances of non-payment.
The Bill ought to provide much stronger safeguards for the sick and the disabled who are large users of water. Payment by instalments should be an option for every water consumer, not just those with payment difficulties. It is outrageous that the provisions were drafted by the industry and the Government without consulting consumer organisations. Privatisation of the water industry is already leading to huge price increases, which will inevitably lead to financial hardship for many consumers and to the likelihood of more people on low incomes being denied access to a domestic water supply. The prospects for families with children, for the disabled and for the elderly are horrendous. The social and health consequences of water supplies being cut off are so great that in many areas the Government are putting at risk the health and the wellbeing of whole communities. It is amazing that the Government are so callous about their cut-off regime and about the potential difficulties that people will face in paying their water bills as a result at having to meet the costs of privatisation and water metering.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does my hon. Friend recall that we were able to produce water bills in the Sheffield area which proved that 67 per cent. of the water charges for single pensioners were not for water but for water metering? The Minister referred to the payment of welfare benefit, but I recall the Department of Social Security saying that there would be no financial help to meet water bills.

Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our concern for people in such difficulties is clear. The Government's lack of concern is equally clear. They claim that this is an environmental measure because it will release water authorities from the constraints of the public sector borrowing requirement, but that can be done at a stroke anyway. Privatisation is not needed for water authorities to be able to borrow on the open market. One can imagine what will happen after flotation. During the lunch break at the Stock Exchange, the developers, the speculators and others in the City will be saying, "What shall we invest our money in today to make a quick buck or a long-term gain? Let us invest in the problems of cleaning up the river Mersey. Let us put our money into cleaning up Britain's bathing beaches and drinking water. We can borrow money on the open market as we are sure to make a packet out of it because it is very profitable."
My car broke down last week outside the House of Commons. It had a puncture. The police did not help me, so I got out and jacked up the car. I was about to take the wheel off when the Secretary of State for the Environment came by, opened the front door of my car and started to remove the radio. When I said, "What are you doing, mate?" he replied, "If you're having the wheels, I'm having the radio." Then the Prime Minister came along. She opened the bonnet of the car and was messing about underneath. The Secretary of State for the Environment and I asked, "What are you doing?" She replied, "Taking the water out of the radiator—you don't know how much this will cost very soon."

6 pm

Mr. John Heddle: I wish briefly to pursue the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). I agree with him absolutely that the cost of connection for new homes will ultimately have an impact on the value and cost of building land. Anything that can legitimately keep down the cost of building land must ultimately be to the benefit of the consumer, particularly first-time buyers, whom we must protect.
May I press my hon. and learned Friend the Minister a little further? If I heard the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) correctly, she said from the Dispatch Box that the cost of connection could well be some £2.000 per dwelling. As I understand it—

It being Six o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 303.

Division No. 272]
[6 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Armstrong, Hilary


Allen, Graham
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Anderson, Donald
Ashton, Joe


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)






Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hoyle, Doug


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Battle, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Beckett, Margaret
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ingram, Adam


Bidwell, Sydney
Janner, Greville


Blunkett, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Boateng, Paul
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Boyes, Roland
Kennedy, Charles


Bradley, Keith
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Livingstone, Ken


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Livsey, Richard


Buckley, George J.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Caborn, Richard
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim
McAllion, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McCartney, Ian


Canavan, Dennis
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cartwright, John
McFall, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McKelvey, William


Clay, Bob
McLeish, Henry


Clelland, David
McWilliam, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Madden, Max


Cohen, Harry
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cousins, Jim
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cox, Tom
Martlew, Eric


Crowther, Stan
Maxton, John


Cryer, Bob
Meacher, Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
Meale, Alan


Dalyell, Tarn
Michael, Alun


Darling, Alistair
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Morgan, Rhodri


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Morley, Elliott


Oewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dixon, Don
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dobson, Frank
Mullin, Chris


Doran, Frank
Murphy, Paul


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Nellist, Dave


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Brien, William


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
O'Neill, Martin


Fisher, Mark
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flannery, Martin
Pendry, Tom


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foulkes, George
Prescott, John


Fraser, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fyfe, Maria
Radice, Giles


Galloway, George
Randall, Stuart


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Reid, Dr John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Richardson, Jo


Golding, Mrs Llin
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Gordon, Mildred
Robertson, George


Gould, Bryan
Rogers, Allan


Graham, Thomas
Rooker, Jeff


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Rowlands, Ted


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Sheerman, Barry


Grocott, Bruce
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Harman, Ms Harriet
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Henderson, Doug
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Snape, Peter


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Soley, Clive


Hood, Jimmy
Steel, Rt Hon David


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Steinberg, Gerry


Howells, Geraint
Stott, Roger


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Strang, Gavin





Straw, Jack
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wilson, Brian


Turner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Vaz, Keith
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wall, Pat
Worthington, Tony


Wallace, James
Wray, Jimmy


Walley, Joan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert N.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Aitken, Jonathan
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alexander, Richard
Day, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Devlin, Tim


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dicks, Terry


Amess, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Amos, Alan
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arbuthnot, James
Dover, Den


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Dykes, Hugh


Ashby, David
Eggar, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Emery, Sir Peter


Atkins, Robert
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
Fallon, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Favell, Tony


Batiste, Spencer
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bendall, Vivian
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forth, Eric


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Body, Sir Richard
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Freeman, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
French, Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gardiner, George


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowis, John
Gill, Christopher


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Glyn, Dr Alan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodlad, Alastair


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorst, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gow, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Budgen, Nicholas
Gregory, Conal


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Burt, Alistair
Grist, Ian


Butcher, John
Ground, Patrick


Butler, Chris
Grylls, Michael


Butterfill, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Cash, William
Hannam, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Chope, Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan


Churchill, Mr
Hawkins, Christopher


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Colvin, Michael
Hayward, Robert


Conway, Derek
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Heddle, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Couchman, James
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Cran, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Critchley, Julian
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Curry, David
Holt, Richard






Hordern, Sir Peter
Mellor, David


Howard, Michael
Miller, Sir Hal


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Mills, Iain


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Miscampbell, Norman


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Mitchell, Sir David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Moate, Roger


Hunter, Andrew
Monro, Sir Hector


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Irvine, Michael
Moore, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Morrison, Sir Charles


Jackson, Robert
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Janman, Tim
Moss, Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Mudd, David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Nelson, Anthony


Key, Robert
Neubert, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Kirkhope, Timothy
Nicholls, Patrick


Knapman, Roger
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Norris, Steve


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Knowles, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Knox, David
Page, Richard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Paice, James


Latham, Michael
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Lawrence, Ivan
Patnick, Irvine


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Pawsey, James


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Lilley, Peter
Portillo, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Powell, William (Corby)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Price, Sir David


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Raffan, Keith


McCrindle, Robert
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Rathbone, Tim


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Redwood, John


Maclean, David
Renton, Tim


McLoughlin, Patrick
Rhodes James, Robert


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Riddick, Graham


Madel, David
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Major, Rt Hon John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Malins, Humfrey
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Mans, Keith
Roe, Mrs Marion


Maples, John
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Marland, Paul
Rost, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Rowe, Andrew


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Ryder, Richard


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Mates, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Maude, Hon Francis
Sayeed, Jonathan


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas





Shaw, David (Dover)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Trippier, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Trotter, Neville


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shersby, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Speller, Tony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Squire, Robin
Ward, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Warren, Kenneth


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stern, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Stevens, Lewis
Wheeler, John


Stokes, Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Widdecombe, Ann


Sumberg, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Summerson, Hugo
Wilshire, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Yeo, Tim


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thorne, Neil
Tellers for the Noes:


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. Tony Durant and


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. David Lightbown.


Townend, John (Bridlington)

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to he concluded by Six o'clock.

Lords amendment No. 13 agreed to.

Royal Assent

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Police Officers (Central Service) Act 1989.
Hearing Aid Council (Amendment) Act 1989. Dock Work Act 1989.
Kingston upon Hull City Council Act 1989.
Tees (Newport) Bridge Act 1989.

Water Bill

Lords amendments again considered.

Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 7, line 19, at end insert—
—"( ) to ensure that the interests of every such person are further protected as respects benefits that could be secured for them by the application in a particular manner of any of the proceeds of a disposal (whether before, on or after the transfer date) of any of that company's protected land or of any interest or right in or over any of that land;

Read a Second time.

Dr. Cunningham: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 4, leave out 'any of the proceeds' and insert
'not less than fifty per cent of the proceeds'.

.—(1) The Authority shall not dispose of any of its compulsorily acquired land, or of any interest or right in or over any of the land, except with the consent of, or in accordance with a general authorisation given by, the Secretary of State or the Minister.
(2) A company holding an appointment under Chapter I of Part II of this Act shall not dispose of any of its protected land, or of any interest or right in or over any of that land, except with the consent of, or in accordance with a general authorisation given by, the Secretary of State.
(3) A consent or authorisation for the purposes of this section shall be set out in a notice served by the Secretary of State or the Minister on the person who is or may be authorised, by virtue of the provision contained in the notice, to dispose of land or of interests or rights in or over land or, as the case may be, on every such person.
(4) A consent or authorisation for the purposes of this section may be given on such conditions as the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Minister considers appropriate.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above and subject to subsection (6) below, the conditions of a consent or authorisation for the purposes of this section may include—

(a) a requirement that, before there is any disposal, an opportunity of acquiring the land in question, or an interest or right in or over that land, is to be made avaialbe, in such manner and on such terms as may be specified in or determined under provision contained in the notice setting out the consent or authorisation, to such person as may be so specified or determined;
(b) a requirement, in the case of a consent or authorisation for the purposes of subsection (2) above, that the company making the disposal has complied with such of the conditions of its appointment under Chapter I of Part II of this Act as relate to the disposal of its protected land or of any interest or right in or over that land;
(c) a requirement that such a company, before making a disposal in a case in which the land in question is situated in a National Park, in the Broads or in an area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest, should do one or both of the following, that is to say—

(i) consult with the Countryside Commission and, in the case of an area of special scientific interest, with the Nature Conservancy Council; and
(ii) enter into such agreements under section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (management agreements) or such convenants under subsection (7) below as the Secretary of State may determine;

(d) provision requiring determinations under or for the purposes of the consent or authorisation to be made, in such cases as are mentioned in paragraph (c) above, either by the Countryside Commission or only after consultation with that Commission.

(6) A consent or authorisation shall not be given on any such condition as is mentioned in subsection (5)(a) above except where the Secretary of State or the Minister is satisfied that the condition will have effect in relation only to—

(a) land which, or any interest or right in or over which, was acquired by—

(i) The Authority;
(ii) the water undertaker or sewerage undertaker in question; or

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, in line 4, leave out 'any of the proceeds' and insert 'all of the proceeds'.

Lords amendments Nos. 41 to 43, 151 and 157.

Lords amendment No. 158, after clause 147, to insert the following new clause—restriction on disposals of land—

(iii) any predecessor of the Authority or undertaker, either compulsorily or at a time when the Authority, undertaker or predecessor was authorised to acquire it compulsorily; or

(b) land situated in a National Park, in the Broads or in an area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest.

(7) Where a company holding an appointment under Chapter 1 of Part II of this Act is proposing, in such a case as is mentioned in subsection (5)(c) above, to dispose of, or of any interest or right in or over, any of its protected land, it may enter into a covenant with the Secretary of State by virture of which it accepts obligations with respect to—

(a) the freedom of access to the land that is to be afforded to members of the public or to persons of any description; or
(b) the use of management of the land;

and a covenant under this subsection shall bind all persons deriving title from or under that company and shall be enforceable by the Secretary of State accordingly.

(8) Section 8 above shall have effect for the purposes of this section as if every proposal which—

(a) is made by a company holding an appointment as a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker with respect to land in a National Park, in the Broads or in an area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest or with respect to any interest or right in or over any such land; and
(b) is a proposal for which the Secretary of State's consent or authorisation is required under this section,

were a proposal relating to the functions of that undertaker.

(9) In this section "compulsorily acquired land", in relation to the Authority, means any land of the Authority which—

(a) was acquired by the Authority compulsorily under the provisions of section 147 above or of section 150 below;
(b) was acquired by the Authority at a time when it was authorised under those provisions to acquire the land compulsorily;
(c) being land which has been transferred to the Authority in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act, was acquired by a predecessor of the Authority compulsorily under so much of any enactment in force at any time before the transfer date as conferred powers of compulsorily acquisition; or
(d) being land which has been so transferred, was acquired by such a predecessor at a time when it was authorised to acquire the land by virtue of any such powers as are mentioned in paragraph (c) above.)

(10) In this section—
area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest" means an area which—

(a) is for the time being designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty for the purposes of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949; or
(b) is an area in relation to which a notification given, or having effect as if given, under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (areas of special scientific interest) for the time being has effect;

and the reference in subsection (5)(c) above to an area of special scientific interest shall, accordingly, be construed as a reference to an area such as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of this definition; and
the Broads" has the same meaning as in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988.

Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 14, at end insert—
(3A) Before granting any consent or authorisation under this section, the Secretary of State shall undertake public consultation, and for the purposes of such consultation shall—

(a) invite representations from such individuals or organisations as appear to him to be concerned; and
(b) publish a notice of the applications for consent or authorisation in the London Gazette and such local newspapers and other publications as appear to him to be relevant and no period for representations shall be specified which is less than 42 days.'.

Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, in line 35, in subsection (5)(c), after 'Broads', insert in a designated area'.

Amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, at end of subsection (1). Add—
'"designated area" means any area which is for the time being designated by an order made by the Secretary of State by

statutory instrument as an area in relation to which this section should apply as if it were in a National Park, the Broads or an area of outstanding beauty.'.

Lords amendments Nos. 171 and 172.

Dr. Cunningham: I shall discuss amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 14 and amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 158.
Lords amendment No. 14 places a duty on the director general to secure something for water consumers from the profits made from the sale of protected land. Amendments (a) and (b) offer the Government two choices: first. that 50 per cent. of the proceeds should be given to the consumer, which would be in line with a statement made by the Minister for Water and Planning and Ministers in another place but which was not written into the legislation; and, secondly, that 100 per cent. of the proceeds from the sale of such land should be given to the consumer.
Lords amendment No. 158 is a new clause relating to land disposals and introduces new procedures tor land


sales in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and the Norfolk broads. Amendments (a), (b) and (c) introduce an important measure of consultation into the land proposals and reinstate a provision for the Secretary of State to designate other areas as though the categories apply.
It never fails to astonish people here and abroad when they learn that a British Government are offering tracts of our national parks for sale. The idea behind the creation of national parks was to establish areas that should be given the utmost protection in law by the Government. Until the Government introduced the Bill, that was the generally agreed procedure, whatever party was in office.

Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: In a moment.
Huge areas of our national parks, areas of oustanding natural beauty and other sensitive ecosystems are now up for sale. I readily accept that currently they are not all publicly owned and controlled, but they are strenuously and, in some cases, rigorously controlled. The Bill clears the way for not only the sale of such land but its potential exploitation, about which there is legitimate and widespread concern.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): That is wrong.

Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State says, "That is wrong." If he has read today's newspapers he will be aware that the director general of the National Trust agrees not with him but with us. In a letter that appeared in today's newspapers he said:
The Government's retreat from its own measure means that a significant proportion of outstanding fine countryside could be under threat if, as seems likely, the new water companies decide to sell.
That is exactly the point that Labour Members are making, and the director general of the National Trust shares our view.

Mr. Howard: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, far from sharing his view, the director general of the National Trust is seeking an extension to further areas of the protection that the Bill provides for areas of
outstanding natural beauty, national parks and sites of special scientific interest? The hon. Gentleman has just
suggested that those areas would be up for grabs as a result of the legislation. He does not even understand the letter written by the director general of the National Trust.

Dr. Cunningham: Of course, I understand. I also understand the Council for the Protection of Rural England which has said:
Third Reading in the House of Lords saw the Government reneging on previous commitments in a quite remarkable way. Amendments introduced by the Government only two weeks previously at Report Stage were turned on their heads as the Government apparently had second thoughts. These actions cause CPRE to seriously question the Government's commitment to protecting the environmental quality of the water industry's land assets.
It is no good the Minister saying that the Labour party does not understand. We have understood from the outset. On Second Reading and during a long Committee stage that same Minister told us that no changes to the Bill were necessary. In Committee he told us that all the

amendments were irrelevant. He said that the Bill was perfect as it stood and that there was no question of weakness in respect of safeguarding our national heritage and environment, but then in the House of Lords his right hon. and noble Friends changed their minds. The Government then moved amendments, but subsequently went back on some of those very amendments.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is wrong again. Clearly he has a dim recollection of what transpired in Committee, but I invite him to recall that I always said that we would listen to the arguments advanced on this matter and that we would introduce further protections if they were required. Given that the hon. Gentleman has been wrong in the past five minutes, will he now answer the question that I put to him a moment ago on the proper understanding of the letter in today's papers from the director general of the National Trust?

Dr. Cunningham: I understand that letter and I also understand what the CPRE has said. It is not good enough for Ministers always to come to the House, as they did on Second Reading and in Committee, and say that the Opposition always fail to understand. Every time Government legislation is criticised, apparently that criticism is never valid and is never borne out by the evidence. The answer always given is that the Opposition do not understand. The Minister's problem is that we understand only too well. So do the British people; that is his difficulty.
My memory is at least as good as the Minister's and better than that of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) who was ranting earlier and could not even remember the date of the previous general election. We understood the proceedings in Committee and—

Mr. Howard: Answer the question.

Dr. Cunningham: I have answered the question. If the Minister goes back and reads the record, he will see that all the arguments that he dismissed in Committee were suddenly conceded in the House of Lords.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must be made to come to the point instead of flapping and wriggling. Earlier he said that large parts of the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty would be up for sale to anyone who wished to exploit them. That is not what the director general of the National Trust said. He commended the system of protection in the national parks and he said that he wanted it to be extended to areas other than the specified areas. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his allegation that large parts of the national parks will be up for grabs. That is not true and he knows it. For once he should make an honest man of himself and withdraw that remark.

Dr. Cunningham: I am well aware, and I think the Secretary of State is, too, that the regional water authorities of England and Wales own about 500,000 acres of land.

Mr. Ridley: Flannel.

Dr. Cunningham: It is not flannel to state a fact. I did not think that anyone would dispute that the regional water authorities own about 500,000 acres of land, much of it in the national parks, in areas of outstanding natural beauty—in sites of special scientific interest and in fragile


ecosystems. That is not a Labour party view; it is fact. As a result of the proposals, that land is for sale. Its future well-being is also outwith the direct control of those proposals as that consideration will not be part of the so-called "core activities". That was the argument on Second Reading eight months ago. The Secretary of State cannot run away from the facts. That is why we have argued about those issues since the Bill was published.

Mr. Ridley: indicated dissent.

Dr. Cunningham: No matter how hard the Secretary of State shakes his head that is why almost all environmental groups, including anglers, ramblers, the Open Space Society and the National Trust, have persistently bombarded Parliament and his Department for much tighter controls and safeguards. No matter what he says, the Secretary of State cannot get away from that.
We believe that the Government's amendments are something of a victory for the energetic way in which the issues have been pursued, notably by the Ramblers Association and the CPRE. I read in one newspaper article that the Government's advisers had said that the Bill as it originally stood was not good enough. The Countryside Commission and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds were also at the forefront in pressing for more safeguards. I also suggest that my hon. Friends and our colleagues in the other place deserve a little of the credit for the changes that are being made, although I know that the Secretary of State would not concede that for a moment.
On Second Reading we raised the issue of the land held by the water authorities and we have continued to do so because, from day one, we have said that the land—our national heritage—was in danger and represented a deliberate sweetener in the Bill. We warned that taxpayers were in danger of being ripped off.
During the Bill's proceedings the Government have huffed and puffed and they have insisted that the environment, recreation and conservation duties in the Bill apply to the land even when transferred to a subsidiary. The Ramblers Association has obtained two legal opinions to show that the Minister has simply got it wrong. One legal opinion stated:
I can find nothing in the Bill that so provides. The duty does not attach to the land and does not automatically pass with the transfer of the land.
We believe that the Government amendments—incidentally, they were not even introduced until the penultimate stage of the Bill's proceedings in the other place—are a limited and belated recognition of the dangers. In that sense, they are welcome. We are also aware, however, that some people in the City believe that restricting the opportunities for potential development will obviously make the assets less attractive as a purchase. Those views were highlighted again in the Harris poll in The Observer which found that more than 80 per cent. of fund managers were concerned that any legislation that curbed the water authorities' ability to make profits from their sizeable land and property portfolios would reduce the investment attractions.
Ministers are in a dilemma. They are trying to grab some vestige of public confidence by seeming to protect the land and the taxpayer, given that the scandal of the Royal Ordnance sale is still fresh in people's minds, while saying to the City and those who see land as the only possible money-spinner, "It is all right. We will not make it too difficult for land assets to be stripped and sold for profit".

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend may be interested in the answer given to me today by the Minister to a written question which says that all nine water authorities in England have property or estate managers whose responsibilities include the disposal of surplus land. The function of those officers who are studying land disposal to make the profits to which my hon. Friend referred has concerned the Ramblers Association and others.

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right. Had the Government wanted to give safeguards and tough protection, they would have had far more rigorous proposals in the Bill from the outset. We now have a fudge. We had a ministerial statement to tell the public that the Government recognise that much land might be sold, but that if it was consumers would have perhaps 50 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale. However, there is no guarantee of that in the Bill and that is why we have tabled amendments (a) and (b).
There is no guarantee either that the House or the public will know the value of that land. We have fresh in our minds the experience of the sale of Royal Ordnance, which was heavily criticised some months ago by the Public Accounts Committee and more recently by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who is not in his place at present, said of that experience:
Whether a going concern or not, surely the vendor of any business must pay full regard to the potential for appreciation in the value of the land as a result of the granting of planning permission?
The taxpayer lost millions of pounds as a result of the Royal Ordnance sale. Taxpayers are in danger of losing hundreds of millions of pounds from this sale, which is a potential scandal. As far as we know, there will be no public statement of the assessment of the value of all this land to the taxpayer, even though we know that the Government have just instructed their advisers, Schroder Wagg, to produce such a land valuation report. Why is that report not before the House? Why cannot the public and Parliament be told the exact value of our assets before they are disposed of? That is a germane question.
The proposals of the Secretary of State would carry a little more force if he were more open and honest about what is at stake. Everyone understands that the 500,000 acres to which we refer were bought, established, maintained and nurtured over decades at public expense and are a huge public asset. People would rightly argue that in many cases they are a priceless public asset. The House and the public are entitled to know exactly what the land is worth. If it is to be sold and if we are to try to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer and the consumer, the legislation should refer specifically to the benefit.
As everyone knows, I and my hon. Friends do not want the land to be sold at all. But if it is to be sold, should not the public have a guarantee about the benefit? As the Bill stands, they have no guarantee. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why it cannot be written into the Bill that a minimum of 50 per cent.—or, better still, 100 per cent. —of the proceeds will go to consumers. After all, it is our land. Why should we not have the proceeds from its sale?
The Government's concession on the land deal has been to introduce a new consent mechanism for land disposal, whereby the Secretary of State has powers to introduce


various conditions on land sales including, for some areas, an option for conservation organisations to purchase and for the imposition of management agreements. That is fine as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. In some respects, it obscures rather than illuminates the position and there are some serious defects, to which other people have referred, too.
The powers given to the Secretary of State are powers, not a duty to exercise those powers. He will have no statutory obligation to exercise them. He only has to make conditions on disposals that he "considers appropriate." The Ramblers Association believes that that is court-proof, legally sanitised wording. As the Bill stands, Ministers do not even have to announce that the land is up for sale in the first place. The transactions could go ahead without anyone knowing what is happening. If that were to be challenged, the Secretary of State would fall back on the Act and say that he had made conditions that he considered appropriate. Parliament would not be involved and there would be no proper discussion on the merits or otherwise of what was happening. Everything would be done quietly behind closed doors.

Mr. Boswell: Surely it is at that point that the obligations the Minister assumes under his general duty to protect the environment, among other considerations, would come into play. He could be tested in the exercise of the power of withholding consent to disposal.

Dr. Cunningham: I do not agree with that interpretation. If the hon. Gentleman studies the Bill again, perhaps he will agree with me.
There is no provision for public consultation on or notification of land disposal proceedings at any stage. That is an extraordinary omission and raises the possibilities of everything being done secretly. Our amendments provide for full consultation. If the Government want to be taken seriously on the issue, they should accept the amendments before it is too late.
The Secretary of State will also have discretion to designate areas as sites of special scientific interest or areas of outstanding natural beauty, such as the Broads. However, once again, it is at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Organisations such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Countryside Commission consider the power to designate essential for the 200,000 acres of land that will not be covered by the new clause. The Government have tried to make much of the last-minute addition of SSSIs to the clause, which replaces the power to designate, but we and the conservation bodies consider it inadequate. It is an attempt, apparently, to deal with the problem while removing a potentially vital additional power. It is a sleight of hand and our view is widely shared outside the House.
Our discussions on the land issue are affected by a further major reservation. Under any other Secretary of State, and certainly under a Labour Secretary of State, the powers could and almost certainly would be exercised to give far tougher and more meaningful protection to land. I say that now so that no one can be in any doubt about our intentions. However, under the present Secretary of State, who has a laissez-faire attitude not only to these issues but to planning generally, the Government's

amendments are simply an attempt to pay lip service to the notion of needing to give more rigorous protection to our land. They introduce, over and above the current flawed planning system, a mechanism for the Secretary of State, if he wishes, to slip through land sales to anyone he wishes, in any circumstances he wishes, without the necessity of public notification, public consultation or a public right of appeal. That is wholly unsatisfactory and that is why we have tabled our amendments.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I wish to speak to several amendments, but to refer specifically to the fate of Barn Elms reservoir, which is currently under the control of Thames Water.
Barnes itself is only seven miles from Westminster and still possesses a village atmosphere in an ever-more frenetic world. Although it is blighted by incessant aircraft noise, few residents know of a more pleasant urban environment. We fiercely hold on to our metropolitan open land and, despite high-density housing, relief is at hand in the natural environment, with the river Thames on two sides, Barnes common to the south and Barn Elms reservoir to the east.
Barn Elms comprises nearly 70 acres of reservoir, split into four almost equal quarters. There are approximately 80 acres of surrounding land, including filter beds, allotments and recreational open land. One major problem of the site, and the source of its main threat, is that its status as a site of special scientific interest, granted by the Nature Conservancy Council in June 1985, has recently been lifted. Although there is some argument about whether SSSI status has legally been removed when that status is lifted, it is obvious that removing the cast-iron SSSI status poses an additional threat to that part of London. Because of its proximity to the centre of London, the potential value of the land to a developer is exceptionally high. It must be a gleam in the eye of some official at Thames Water.
I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to consider what Barnes might be like if a large housing estate were built on the site at Barn Elms. The only exit from Barnes to the north is Hammersmith bridge, which has a severely restricted weight limit. Two new crossings over the Thames would be needed to deal with what would be a doubling of the size of the population of Barnes. At the moment one has to wait upwards of half an hour to cross Hammersmith bridge in the morning. If the population of Barnes were doubled, the environmental considerations would be absolutely grotesque—

Mr. Mullin: I have considerable sympathy with the case outlined by the hon. Gentleman, but I invite him to raise his horizons slightly and to recognise that we are talking not only about Barn Elms reservoir—important though that may be to his constituents—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said, about 500,000 acres of some of our prime land.

Mr. Hanley: I readily accept that. However, it is up to each hon. Member to address those general problems in any way that he or she chooses. This matter is of urgent consideration to the people of Barnes and is symptomatic of the general position. Therefore, in choosing this particular area of difficulty caused by the legislation, I am addressing the more general points—

Mr. Mullin: rose—

Mr. Hanley: No, I shall not give way again because this is only a short debate.

Mr. Mullin: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.

Mr. Hanley: I do not want to give way because this is a short debate—

Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I suspect that this is an example of the phenomenon. known as "not in my back yard". It is distasteful to those of us who oppose the Bill root and branch to see special pleading from hon. Members who represent constituencies that are a good deal more leafy than those that many Opposition Members represent.

Mr. Hanley: In a strange way I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I can now point out to my constituents that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) believes that hon. Members should not fight fiercely for the interests of their constituents. The hon. Gentleman is saying that I should not care about my own back yard. That is disgraceful—

Mr. Mullin: No, I am not saying that.

Mr. Hanky: I hope that Labour party supporters in my constituency will regret the hon. Gentleman's words.

Mr. Mullin: I have said that I was not saying that.

Mr. Hanley: In a debate on Barn Elms reservoir on 29 July 1988, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), stated, on her very first day as a Minister:
I assure him"—
that is, me—
that that is a very premature fear at this stage, although it is entirely understandable and right that people living in or near areas of wildlife interest wish those areas to be properly protected and looked after. That is especially true in urban areas, where opportunities to see and enjoy wildlife are greatly valued …
If the water authority decides that Barn Elms reservoir is no longer required for operational purposes, it could still be managed positively for wildlife benefit by the local authority or a conservation group. The NCC is well able to assist with such arrangements as a result of its expertise and professionalism.…
Whatever the future ownership of the site, any proposals for a change in its current use would have to be considered in accordance with the guidance given in circular 27/87 entitled `Nature Conservation'. That reinforces the advice given to local authorities that they should take full account of the needs of nature conservation not only in determining individual planning applications but in formulating general planning policies. An awareness of conservation should be built into the whole range of their activities affecting the use of land.
I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend that, even if the site should eventually be de-notified as an SSSI, there are a number of other ways of protecting its wildlife interest".—[Official Report, 29 July 1988; Vol. 138, c. 860–63.]
That view was reinforced by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning who, in a letter to me dated 8 June 1989, stated that the amendments that we are discussing
will ensure that the conservation and recreation duties will apply to the management of all land owned by water companies even if they no longer need it for their statutory

functions. If such land is disposed of in areas of environmental importance the Secretary of State will have wide powers under the Bill to impose, as a condition of sale, any measures necessary to ensure continued protection of special conservation and amenity features of the land. These will include an obligation that the land be first offered to a conservation body, or that it is indefinitely protected by covenants or management agreements with National Parks authorities or local authorities. These provisions have been warmly welcomed by the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
Towards the end of the letter he stated:
It is worth stressing that local authorities which prepare up to date local plans in line with regional guidance can decide where development shall and shall not take place. We have made it clear that we will be guided by them on appeal if developers ignore such plans.
That last sentence is crucial because it shows that, contrary to some of the rumours circulating in my area, it is up to the local authorities to decide whether metropolitan open land is used for building. I am asking my hon. Friend to give an assurance to my constituents that if the local authority decides that the metropolitan open land should remain as such, the Department of the Environment will not try to maximise any benefit for the consumers of Thames Water and decide to overturn the local authority's decision. In the various guidelines that it has issued, the Department has said that it wants to protect metropolitan open land even more stringently than that land has been protected in the past. The draft guidance further protects such property.
There are two major reasons why the rumours of the dangers to this site have been given credence. The first is that Thames Water has apparently said to Richmond upon Thames council that its plans for the disposal of Thames Water, by giving it to the Wildfowl Trust at Slimbridge, have had to be abandoned because of these amendments. The money allocated by the Metropolitan water board for the establishment of a wildfowl trust in the area can no longer be used for that purpose; it must now be used for the benefit of the consumer. In other words, Thames Water was providing cash to set up a wildfowl trust but now believes that it cannot do so because the money must be given to Thames Water consumers. That is a wrong interpretation of the current position and I call on my hon. Friend to give an assurance on that point.
The other main reason why the rumour has been circulating is as follows. The Minister for Water and Planning said in his letter:
The Government has also asked Debenham Tewson and Chinnocks to conduct a thorough valuation of water authority land. Sites which are surplus to requirement or likely to become so within the next 5 years have been identified. Few of these have planning permission for alternative use which could, if secured, significantly increase their present open market value. This exercise will ensure that the valuation of the companies contained in individual prospectuses includes a reasonable amount for land holdings.
A valuation of Barn Elms has produced a high hope value, as it is known. That must imply a strong possibility that the land will be used for housing, and that high hope value will affect the value of Thames Water in the prospectus. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State says that there is a great likelihood that metropolitan open land will remain as metropolitan open land and will not be used for high-density housing, the high hope value for Barn Elms is inaccurate and the value to be given to Thames Water in the prospectus will therefore be exaggerated.
I seek an assurance that the Government will carefully consider the amenity value of the area and the unique nature of the wildlife, which includes more than 40 different types of bird, in an area that would otherwise be entirely built-up urban environment. I ask the Government to continue to ensure that such areas are valued and protected, for the benefit of our constituents and local residents and the population of London in general.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a lot of ground to cover in a very short time.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I support the amendments. Amendments (a) and (b) would ensure that half the proceeds and 100 per cent. of the proceeds of land sales, respectively, would go to the consumer. There is no doubt that that is right, although it is regrettable that it has been necessary to table such amendments. We are witnessing the land sale of the century. Unfortunately, in the other place, the Government reneged on their previous commitments by removing the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State and thus made a mockery of their previous promises.
I am especially concerned about what will happen in Wales. My constituency contains two thirds of the land holdings of Welsh Water—21,000 acres in the Brecon Beacons national park and 45,000 acres in the Elan valley. Both locally and nationally it is feared that that land will be sold off. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has said that at least 15 per cent. of the Elan valley—7,000 acres—is in danger as a result of the exclusion of a number of exceptional landscape areas from possible protection. Those areas need to be protected, but it is feared that they will be exploited and farmers in the Elan valley already see signs to suggest that their rents will escalate.
The land should be properly valued. Amendments were tabled in Committee to involve district valuers in the valuation of the land and to prevent the involvement of too many commercial interests. We can only hope for a fair valuation and that we shall all know what the valuation is and when and where land is to be sold. The process should not take place behind closed doors.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that on 23 March 12 merchant bankers were helicoptered around Wales to look at the real estate for sale. Obviously, they did not know where the land was, so they decided to take a look at it. I think that some of them want to get their hands on it, although according to a report about the attractions of the sale for the City, which appeared in The Observer yesterday, some of them are not so keen as they were before. I believe that there is skulduggery afoot.
An interesting advertisement appeared in The Daily Telegraph on 1 June. A managing director of Welsh Water Enterprises was sought, at an annual salary of £40,000 plus bonus, car and benefit, the location to be Cardiff or Brecon. The advertisement said:
Welsh Water is looking for a Managing Director for Welsh Water Enterprises, intended to be one of four subsidiary companies of the proposed new group.
We do not know what the four subsidiary companies will do, but I bet my bottom dollar that some of them will be

involved in the sale and exploitation of land. That is what this part of the Bill is all about, and that is why I support the amendments.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I wish to refer to land sales and the way in which they will be conducted. I share other hon. Members' concern that, although the Lords amendment would extend the arrangements for the protection of land and in that sense is welcome, the protection needs to be taken very much further. In particular, we should deal with extensions of notification of sites of special scientific interest and the potential damage that might be done to them. We should also incorporate the code of environmental practice in the water undertakers' licence. Those important issues were not dealt with adequately in the other place. They are not especially controversial, and I hope that the Minister will deal with them when he winds up the debate.
Amendment (b) would require the transfer of 100 per cent. of the assets from land sales to the water companies for reinvestment in infrastructure. That is both sound and sensible. If the Government are convinced of the need for more money to be raised to provide for investment in infrastructure, they should accept our amendment. If they do not, they will be acknowledging the fact that they are handing over the proceeds of land sales to private speculators. If that happens, the benefits of the sales will not go to consumers or—more important—to improve the infrastructure to the necessary standard.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I shall deal first with Lords amendments Nos. 14, 41, 43, 157, 158, 171 and 172, and then with the Opposition amendments. I shall be brief because I know that hon. Members on both sides wish to speak in this short debate. The Lords amendments achieve two purposes—to ensure that the special environment quality of much of the land in water authority ownership can be indefinitely protected, and to ensure that the customers of the appointed water and sewerage undertakers share the benefit of any disposals of surplus land.
It is a distinctive feature of this privatisation that the water authorities have very extensive landholdings—more than 430,000 acres—the majority of which lie in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest. The amendments meet various concerns about the future of this land. The Government listened carefully to all that was said, in this House and in another place, and by conservation and other bodies outside this House. That is reflected in the amendments which now come for the approval of the House, and which we believe provide a full answer to the concerns that have been expressed.
Amendment No. 14 would impose an additional duty on the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services to ensure that the interests of customers are protected in the application of proceeds from disposals of protected land. Protected land is defined in amendment No. 172. Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43 make it possible to entrench certain conditions of appointment relating to disposals of land.
The new clause is the centrepiece of this group of proposals. Water and sewerage companies will be able to dispose of their protected land and interests in that land only with the consent of the Secretary of State, or in


accordance with a general authorisation given by him. There is a consent requirement for the National Rivers Authority as well. but that applies only to compulsorily acquired land.
The consent mechanism serves three important purposes. First, it will enable the Secretary of State to require that the Crichel Down rules are observed when there are disposals of land which was compulsory acquired. The rules are designed to protect the interests of the former owners of land. They require that when any land which was acquired by compulsory purchase is to be sold, it should be offered first to the person from whom it was acquired. Disposals to former owners under these arrangements will be at a price reflecting current market value, as determined by the district valuer.
The second purpose of the consent provisions relates to the new duty concerning the proceeds from land disposals in amendment No. 14. The intention is to enable customers to benefit from the net receipts from future disposals or land, while preserving incentives for land to be released or developed. It is essential that the arrangements ensure that customers are not prejudiced by two-stage disposals via sister companies, with the sister company realising all of the development gains. This is where the consent mechanism in amendment No. 158 plays a part.
7 pm
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to give the Director General of Water Services a role in disposals through a consent procedure which will be constructed to allow as much self-policing as possible. There will in effect be three categories of disposal. In the first, directors of appointed companies will be able to provide the director with a certificate that the disposal is an arm's length disposal, with no continuing interest in the land by the appointed company or any related company, and that the best price reasonably obtainable has been obtained.
Where such a certificate cannot be provided, but the disposal is below a certain threshold fixed in relation to the value or area of the land concerned, the company will need a certificate from an independent valuer approved by the director general that the best price has been obtained. The independent valuers will report in particular on any prospect that the value of the land may be enhanced by a future planning permission.
In the third category involving disposals above the threshold which are not arm's length disposals, a specific consent will be needed. As a last resort, the director would be able to block inappropriate disposals at less than the best consideration reasonably obtainable, especially where sister companies are involved.
The consent requirements are designed to make sure that the best price is realised by the appointed company. There will be conditions of appointment determining how that value is to be taken into account in price control, so that customers share the benefit of proceeds. The intention is to set a target allowance for disposals when the RPI plus K price control formula is first set. This will be discussed with each authority and company, but it is proposed that it should reflect 100 per cent. of the open market value of identified surplus sites. Where actual receipts vary from the forecast amount a further adjustment of K will be made reflecting 50 per cent. of the excess or shortfall.
Companies will therefore have an incentive to dispose of their surplus land, and to the extent that they can

improve on the value of land by obtaining planning permission or selling with clawback conditions that operate in the event of a future planning permission, the improvements of value will be shared 50–50 between customer and shareholder.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Moynihan: If I do not answer the point that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make, I will give way in a minute.
The third purpose of the consent mechanism is to enable the Secretary of State to impose special requirements when there are disposals of land of particular environmental quality. The essential elements are as follows Within the national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, the broads, and sites of special scientific interest, special environmental controls will apply to any disposal of land. For any such disposal the Secretary of State's consent will be required, and in deciding whether to give that consent he is to be bound by the clause 8 duties, to further conservation, and to have regard to access.
Within those areas, there is to be a range of special conditions which the Secretary of State can impose on any disposal. He can require that the land be offered m the first instance to a conservation body approved for this purpose by the Countryside Commission—a proposal originally put forward by the National Trust and other conservation bodies. He can also require, as a condition of any disposal, that management agreements can be entered with the relevant park authority or local authority, to the satisfaction of the commission. Finally, he can require covenants for the protection of particular features of the land.
The consent procedures will give the Secretary of State a means of ensuring that the special environmental quality of water authority land can be protected indefinitely. That is in addition to the powerful framework of environmental duties already provided for in clauses 8 to 10.

Mr. Wigley: What concerns me and what may concern other hon. Members who listened carefully to the Minister a few moments ago is that the Minister described the structure as one which can encourage holders of land to dispose of land. Surely the whole thrust of what we were looking for in Committee and in the House of Lords was to avoid any encouragement towards disposal, no matter what conditions apply, and to impose conditions only when disposal is for some reason inevitable. Are the Government now claiming that disposal is a mechanism whereby funds may be raised to make up for the shortfall which might otherwise occur?

Mr. Moynihan: I totally reject that analysis. I f the hon. Gentleman looked at the small print, he would realise that, no matter who owns national parks land now or the water authorities if they wanted to dispose of land in the national parks, there have never been such rigorous controls as those that will be applied now as a result of this measure. There have never been such rigorous controls on the sale of any land in national parks, let alone on private land which may be held after privatisation. Those rigorous controls are welcomed, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) stated, as a victory for conservation and recreation. They are a victory because they go further


in the protection and enhancement of land for conservation and recreation than anything ever produced before.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: It is crucial that we get this point clear because, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, some bodies concerned with the environment and access to the countryside are confused about this part of the Bill. It has changed so often that I am not surprised that they are confused. I am confused as well.
Is the Minister saying that voluntary access agreements which exist only in the Peak District national park in my constituency will definitely be protected on the sale of land even to a company other than that which buys from the water board even on transfer of that land to a subsidiary? Or does the Secretary of State have discretionary powers to protect that access? I should like to know that those access agreements will definitely be protected. If they are to be protected, I do not need to speak again on this amendment and I welcome the changes wholeheartedly.

Mr. Moynihan: For the first time with regard to the sale of any land in national parks, the Secretary of State will have the power to protect access to that land—

Mr. Hawkins: Discretionary power?

Mr. Moynihan: It is important that the Secretary of State ensures that any change in the use of that land is taken into account and that he considers the options that I have outlined to the House today when he exercises his powers. In clause 8, the Secretary of State has a duty to enhance and protect conservation and recreation. There is an important backcloth to that discretionary power, which goes further than any measure with regard to private land sales inside or outside national parks. The Government have also recognised the importance of bringing SSSIs into the category. That will include a large amount of land. The House should welcome that and it should be celebrated as a victory by hon. Members on both sides.

Mr. Hawkins: There are 70 square miles of voluntary access agreements in the Peak District national park. My constituents and I want to know whether that land will be protected by the Bill. I cannot see why we cannot have it on the face of the Bill that the voluntary access agreements will be protected. Some of those agreements run out very soon, in 1991. It is not enough to say that the Secretary of State has discretion to protect them. I do not like discretionary powers of that kind. I want to know that those agreements are definitely protected.

Mr. Moynihan: I give my hon. Friend a clear assurance that those rights of access are protected by the Bill. I have also outlined to the House the precise position that would occur on the sale of any of that land in future. It is very important for me to repeat what I said at the Dispatch Box a few months ago and to reinforce this point. Voluntary rights of access and the right to roam are continued and are protected by the Bill. The safeguards that I discussed when arguing in support of the major environmental safeguards which have been proposed and debated in the House of Lords and which we are considering today—they

have been welcomed by the Opposition as a victory for conservation and recreation—apply also to the sale of land.

Dr. Cunningham: Before the Minister slips into the error of saying that the Opposition welcome what has happened in the House of Lords, I remind him that I said that it was a victory in so far as it went, but that the amendments did not go far enough. What would be the circumstances if the Secretary of State—whoever that may be—elects not to use his discretionary powers in those matters? They are, after all, discretionary powers.

Mr. Moynihan: As I have outlined, if the Secretary of State is at odds with the clause 8 duties to which he is subject, he would be clearly out of order in respect of the duties—they are not discretionary—which are outlined in the Bill and are potentially subject to judicial review. That is not a discretion to ignore clause 8 duties. That is right at the heart of the debate and empowers the enhancement of conservation and recreation and the protection of conservation and recreation duties under clause 8.
I have outlined the safeguards for the sales that are being proposed. The hon. Member for Copeland conveniently and completely ignored the clause 8 duties, which are rigorous and were the subject of comprehensive debate. They are absolutely central to what we are debating as the backbone of protection for the land under consideration.

Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that when land is offered for sale at the Secretary of State's direction an opportunity will first be given to a conservation group to buy it? Will he confirm also that it will be at the undeveloped site value?

Mr. Moynihan: It will be at market value. That is obviously important in ensuring that the sale of plc land is at market value. That is recognised to be in the interests of customers and of the company. It is important that there is protection on the 50–50 arrangements that we propose to make sure that customers gain if more than 50 per cent. of the actual value of the land is realised after privatisation. It does not become 100 per cent. It is protection to ensure that we never see the problems that we have sometimes seen in the past with potential windfall profits after privatisation. That cannot happen because of the protection in the Bill. Money will be adjudged, reported on and audited in prospectuses. It is nonsense to say that there will be no knowledge of the value of the land. Of course land must be valued, audited and put before potential investors when it comes to privatisation proceeds and the sale of the water plcs.
The hon. Member for Copeland made a point about the letter of the director general of the National Trust in the press today. According to the hon. Gentleman, as a result of our proposals large areas of what have been described as jewels in the crown will be bereft of protection. The Countryside Commission identified 15 such jewels. Because of the important measures that we have taken today in supporting the Lords amendments, 12 of them are fully covered, one is a proposed area of outstanding natural beauty and another is covered as to 80 per cent. of the total—and most of the remaining one is covered. It would therefore be more accurate to say that the vast majority of land in those jewels in the crown is covered, and that is because of the extension and inclusion of SSSIs.
Finally, it has been suggested that 7,000 acres of the Elan valley will not qualify for environmental safeguards. That is contrary to what the Government stated in the House of Lords and is not correct. Lord Hesketh stated that inclusion in SSSIs would bring in almost all of the Elan valley. It will bring in about 80 to 90 per cent. My noble Friend's statement was perfectly fair.

Ms. Joan Walley: These amendments do not give full protection. The Minister may suggest that there is a victory, but the safeguards that are being offered are hollow. Opposition Members believe that our land—our national heritage—remains in danger. The Government must decide where their priorities lie. They should ask any of the 2,000 people who follow the activities of the National Trust each day in June what their priorities are. They should ask members of the Ramblers Association and of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds what price they put on that outstanding land—land that is our natural and national heritage. What is most important—the commitment to conservation and environmental inprovement which is shared by the overwhelming majority of the population, or the commitment to shareholders?
If there is to be a sell-off of any of the land that is presently owned by the water undertakers, why cannot the House know how much it is worth? If it is to be sold, why cannot the full proceeds be passed on to consumers? Those issues are important.
For Opposition Members—certainly those who were on the Committee—there is a sense of déjà vu about the debate. We are paying and will continue to pay the price of the Minister's error in Committee on the arrangements for the disposal of land. It was not clear in Committee and it is not clear now—it will not be clear after the Bill has gone through Parliament—exactly what will happen about access to the countryside and the disposal of land.
Despite what the Minister has told us, there still remains a gaping loophole in the Bill. At the heart of it is our access to the countryside. Currently, water authorities have recreational duties for the land. The weakness is that that land can be transferred and, on doing so, a subsidiary company can evade recreational duties. We pressed the Minister on that matter time and again in Committee. All that he could do was to give incorrect answers. The Minister and counsel said two different things about the disposal of land. We have the Ramblers Association and other organisations to thank for counsel's opinion. The Minister was wrong then; the loophole existed. The Lords amendment attempts to plug that loopnole. We criticise it because it gives the Secretary of State great power to which the Minister has referred, but that power is discretionary. There is no duty on the Secretary of State to exercise it.

Mr. Hawkins: The danger is that we will again confuse the public. The hon. Lady's speech was clearly written before the debate. The Minister has said that there is a duty on the Secretary of State in clause 8. I should be delighted if the hon. Lady would clarify that duty for my constituents. To assert that there is no duty is contrary to what the Minister said.

Ms. Walley: As usual, we are restrained by lack of time in this debate. The hon. Gentleman made a point about whether the power is discretionary and whether there is a

duty. One depends upon the other. The Secretary of State, the Ramblers Association and other voluntary associations may have to consult further. Matters relating to the disposal of and access to land are not clear at this stage when Parliament is discussing it. I ask the Minister where that duty is.

Mr. Morley: Will my hon. Friend explore clause 8, because it is not enforceable in law and also contains the words "take notice of"? Will she explore, too, whether clause 8 will apply to the holding companies into which the water authorities will put the land?

Ms. Walley: As always, I thank my hon. Friend for bringing those points so well to the attention of the House. They are on record and will be continuously mentioned.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Walley: No, because time is short.
Our amendment recognises that the Government were wrong. The Lords amendment is nowhere near good enough and does not put matters right, despite what the Minister has said. It is true that the Secretary of State will be given a vast power, but how is it intended that he should use it? What criteria should he be required to use when determining requests for land disposal? Our concern, too, is that no one will know when or whether the Secretary of State is using that power. Will the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State is under any requirement to consult the public, the local authorities or the organisations which have done so much to make access to the countryside a key issue in the opposition to the sell-off of the water industry? Are we really going to see secret land deals? How shall we know what conditions the Secretary of State has imposed before land is sold off'? Will the Minister say why he has confused the issue by referring to protected and designated land, and why in his comments earlier he did not make the situation abundantly clear, as he was requested to do in the letter of the director general of the National Trust to The Independent?
What signposts are the Government following? They say that they are following the conservation signpost, hut, in effect, they are following the one marked "shareholders' profits". Is that not why there are no requirements for public consultation when it comes to the sell-off of land transferred to the subsidiary bodies? Is it not the case that that is precisely the place where the Government lost their way before? We have heard much about the general duties that exist to protect the SSSIs. How can we even believe what the Government say when the Minister responsible for water and planning in another place said no substantial damage has been done to SSSIs in the past three years? However, the plain facts are that, in the four years to 1988, 700 have been damaged and 200 substantially damaged.
The sell-off of the water industry is one more example of the Government's complete disregard for our national heritage. Will the Minister give us a commitment now to effective public participation over this issue of the disposal of our national heritage? If not, the millions of us who care about the threats facing our countryside and access to the land will have to wait until we have the opportunity to vote with our feet on this matter.

Mr. Pike: I must say to the hon. Members for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) that I believe that the Minister has dodged very


skilfully through the minefield that has been set by his hon. Friends, but he has not answered any of the questions put to him. His words will not give the type of guarantee that those hon. Gentlemen are seeking on the disposal of land, or the protection of access to land and the existing concessions. If those hon. Gentlemen want to ensure that such protection is safeguarded, they must vote with us for some of our amendments.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) will try to withdraw amendment (a), so that we can vote on amendment (b). It is important that amendment (b) is put to the vote because there will be no reason—

Mr. Moynihan: I should have liked to respond to all the points, and not only those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) to whom I shall reply in full, for example, in drawing out the critical point that it will be an irrelevant consideration to take account of financial benefits towards consumers when determining a planning appeal. There were many other points such as that to which I wanted to respond to my hon. Friend, but I shall do so in writing. I am sure that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) will appreciate that the reason why I did not do so was to allow the hon. Gentleman and others to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Pike: I also appreciate that the Minister voted for the guillotine that the Government imposed, which prevented us from having sufficient time to debate the issues. If there had not been a guillotine, we would all have had time to make our points to which the Minister could have replied. Once again he is leading us astray.
I was making the point that clearly, if there was no financial incentive in selling land, there would be no reason for water authorities wanting to dispose of land. The Minister has said that there have been concessions, and we welcome the fact that the other place has moved in the right direction. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland made clear that those concessions do not go far enough in protecting the land and access to the land that the Opposition would wish to see.

Mr Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister's points have been specifically addressed to the national parks? He has said very little about the areas outside national parks, except perhaps those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). That gives us great cause for concern, because there are large tracts of land outside the national parks and SSSIs but about which he has given us little guarantee.

Mr Pike: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. I accept that we are concerned about land both outside and inside national parks. As with the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the moorland around Burnley and in north-east Lancashire would not be protected by the type of concession that was made in the other place.

Mrs. Mahon: Twenty per cent. of the land in my area will be up for grabs. Far from it being the sale of the century, we are referring to it as the great land robbery.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend's constituency is, of course, on the other side of the Pennines from mine and has identical problems to those of Burnley.
We are concerned about how the phrase "surplus land" will be interpreted. I wanted to mention specifically amendment (a), which concerns consultation. If we wrote into the Bill that consultation would be required, that would be a major step forward. The Opposition believe that local authorities and bodies such as the Ramblers Association and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, who have given admirable advice to both sides of the House, should be consulted. It must be remembered that those organisations have fought for many of the things that have been achieved.
Much of the access to the lands owned by the water authorities was not conceded readily but has had to be fought for over many years by such organisations as the Ramblers Association. Such organisations fear that, if the Bill goes through in its present form, even with the concessions made in the other House—despite what the Minister has said—those things will be in jeopardy. The Minister knows that he cannot assure us that none of our land will be disposed of and that existing accesses will be maintained. He knows that wherever possible the value of the land will be realised, because that is the way that privatisation will proceed. The Minister knows that the only reason for that being put into the Bill now is that moving the industry from the public to the private sector has introduced a new factor—making a profit. It is only when one needs to make a profit that one starts to look at the sale of land. I hope that the amendment is carried.

Dr. Cunningham: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: (b), in line 4, leave out 'any of the proceeds' and insert 'all of the proceeds'.—[Dr. Cunningham.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 302.

Division No. 273]
[7.29 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Caborn, Richard


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Callaghan, Jim


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Anderson, Donald
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Canavan, Dennis


Armstrong, Hilary
Cartwright, John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clay, Bob


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clelland, David


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Battle, John
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beith, A. J.
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cousins, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Cox, Tom


Bidwell, Sydney
Crowther, Stan


Blunkett, David
Cryer, Bob


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Keith
Darling, Alistair


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Dewar, Donald


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dixon, Don


Buckley, George J.
Dobson, Frank






Doran, Frank
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Morgan, Rhodri


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morley, Elliott


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fisher, Mark
Mowlam, Marjorie


Flannery, Martin
Mullin, Chris


Flynn, Paul
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, John
O'Brien, William


Fyfe, Maria
O'Neill, Martin


Galloway, George
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pendry, Tom


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Pike, Peter L.


Golding, Mrs Llin
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gordon, Mildred
Prescott, John


Gould, Bryan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Graham, Thomas
Radice, Giles


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Randall, Stuart


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Reid, Dr John


Grocott, Bruce
Richardson, Jo


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Heffer, Eric S.
Robertson, George


Henderson, Doug
Rogers, Allan


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rooker, Jeff


Hood, Jimmy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Rowlands, Ted


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Ruddock, Joan


Howells, Geraint
Sedgemore, Brian


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Sheerman, Barry


Hoyle, Doug
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Ingram, Adam
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Janner, Greville
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Soley, Clive


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spearing, Nigel


Kennedy, Charles
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kirkwood, Archy
Steinberg, Gerry


Leadbitter, Ted
Stott, Roger


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Strang, Gavin


Livingstone, Ken
Straw, Jack


Livsey, Richard
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lloyd, Tony (Strettord)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Turner, Dennis


McAllion, John
Vaz, Keith


McAvoy, Thomas
Wall, Pat


McCartney, Ian
Wallace, James


McFall, John
Walley, Joan


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


McKelvey, William
Wareing, Robert N.


McLeish, Henry
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McWilliam, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Madden, Max
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Marek, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Marshall, David (Shettieston)
Winnick, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Worthington, Tony


Martlew, Eric
Wray, Jimmy


Maxton, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Meacher, Michael



Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michael, Alun
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Ken Eastham


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Amos, Alan


Aitken, Jonathan
Arbuthnot, James


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Ashby, David


Amess, David
Aspinwall, Jack





Atkins, Robert
Fry, Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gardiner, George


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gill, Christopher


Baldry, Tony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Batiste, Spencer
Goodlad, Alastair


Bellingham, Henry
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bendall, Vivian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gorst, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gow, Ian


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Body, Sir Richard
Gregory, Conal


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grist, Ian


Boswell, Tim
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Grylls, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hague, William


Bowis, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hanley, Jeremy


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hannam, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brazier, Julian
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bright, Graham
Haselhurst, Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hawkins, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayes, Jerry


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayward, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Heddle, John


Burns, Simon
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butler, Chris
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butterfill, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carrington, Matthew
Holt, Richard


Carttiss, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cash, William
Howard, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Churchill, Mr
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irvine, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Janman, Tim


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knowles, Michael


Dover, Den
Knox, David


Dunn, Bob
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Lang, Ian


Eggar, Tim
Latham, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lawrence, Ivan


Evennett, David
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fallon, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Favell, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fishbum, John Dudley
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Freeman, Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick






McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Major, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Malins, Humfrey
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Mans, Keith
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maples, John
Shersby, Michael


Marland, Paul
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marlow, Tony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Speller, Tony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maude, Hon Francis
Squire, Robin


May hew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mellor, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Miller, Sir Hal
Steen, Anthony


Mills, Iain
Stern, Michael


Miscampbell, Norman
Stevens, Lewis


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stokes, Sir John


Mitchell, Sir David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Moate, Roger
Sumberg, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Summerson, Hugo


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moss, Malcolm
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mudd, David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Thorne, Neil


Neubert, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Norris, Steve
Tredinnick, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Trotter, Neville


Oppenheim, Phillip
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Paice, James
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Patnick, Irvine
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Portillo, Michael
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Price, Sir David
Warren, Kenneth


Raffan, Keith
Watts, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wells, Bowen


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, John


Redwood, John
Whitney, Ray


Renton, Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Rhodes James, Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


Riddick, Graham
Wilshire, David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Roe, Mrs Marion
Yeo, Tim


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rost, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rowe, Andrew



Ryder, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Sackville, Hon Tom
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after half-past Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment No. 14 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 55 agreed to.—[Special entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 15 to 43 agreed to.

Clause 20

ORDERS FOR SECURING COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 44, in page 20, line 39, leave out "subsection (5)" and insert "subsections (2) and (5)".

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 48.
No. 49, in page 21, leave out lines 45 to 47.
Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, at end add
'and insert "except that the Secretary of State or Director as the case may be shall have regard in any case to which paragraph (b) of this subsection applies to any report submitted to the Director by a technical assessor appointed under section 60 below in respect of the contraventions concerned, and the Director shall within two weeks of receiving any such report submit a copy of it to the European Commission"'.
Lords amendments Nos. 50 to 53 and No. 58.

Mr. Ridley: I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House if we also discussed Lords amendments Nos. 62 and 64. Does the House agree that I should speak to those two amendments?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the agreement of the House, that is in order.

Mr. Ridley: The amendments arise out of discussions that we have had with the European Commission which, I am happy to report, is now satisfied that the clause, with these amendments, is fully consistent with Community law. Essentially, the amendments place the holder of my office and the director general under a duty to make a final or provisional order if they believe that a water undertaker is breaching certain statutory duties except in the circumstances specified in subsection (5). In addition, companies will now have to give and comply with undertakings under subsection (5)(b) concerning compliance programmes instead of entering into agreements. If the Secretary of State is not satisfied with an undertaking he is obliged to take enforcement action under the clause.
There have been some rather confusing reports on this issue, and I believe that it would be helpful if I put that right. Clause 20, after all, is only one element of a wider process that also needs to be appreciated. Clause 20(5) provides a powerful and effective mechanism—which I think has no parallel in other European countries—whereby, for example, water undertakers set out in detail their programmes for meeting the standards of the drinking water directive and the Secretary of State ensures that the programmes are carried out. We are at this moment discussing with each water undertaker its long-term investment programmes for drinking water quality, including measures to comply with the EC directive. It is the Government's firm policy that those supplies that do not meet the directive's strict standards will be improved as quickly as possible. However, they involve designing and building new treatment works in some places and replacing or re-lining water mains in others. While that work is taking place, it is essential to maintain water supplies, to protect people's health and to minimise the disruption to the general public.
Provided that the water company is carrying out a compliance programme acceptable to the Secretary of


State. there would be no point in his taking enforcement action against it. Nor would there be any point in the European Commission taking action against the United Kingdom Government, because the programme would be being implemented as fast as possible. The undertaker could proceed faster only if we were prepared to accept adverse consequences for water consumers and for the public generally.

Mr. John Redwood: Although I agree that there is no point in persistently attacking a water authority that is trying to put right something that has been demonstrated to be wrong in a court of law, does my right hon. Friend agree that it could send the wrong signals if the consent limits were moved downwards at exactly the point where a works was undertaking investment to meet the old consent levels which were those that the public wanted it to achieve?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, but that is not what is being proposed. We are proposing to raise consent levels to the standard of the directive—and, in some cases, to higher standards. When we see a programme to implement the necessary works in the shortest possible time, it is only then that the so-called protection would arise.
Only last week, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning had a constructive and fruitful discussion with Commissioner Ripa di Meana, during which he reaffirmed the Government's determination to comply with the drinking water directive as soon as is reasonably practicable. For his part, Commissioner Ripa di Meana said that he accepted the Government's resolve in the matter. Moreover, he accepted that these major programmes could not be carried out overnight, a view that he had previously expressed in a letter that was placed in the Library on 23 May.
The water undertakers must convince the Secretary of State that they are doing all that they can to comply speedily with the drinking water directive, and the European Commission will want to see the programmes because it has a role in ensuring that European legislation is properly implemented. The undertakers' programmes are now being drawn up and will be made public later this year, as soon as we have them. The programmes will contain the dates by which compliance with the remaining standards in the directive will be achieved. The details of those programmes will be set out in formal undertakings. The Commission will be interested to see those programmes, and I am sure that it will recognise that the United Kingdom is proceeding conscientiously and swiftly with them. No other member state complies with the drinking water directive, and no member state, as far as I am aware, has examined its investment needs in the rigorous way that forthcoming privatisation has required. Nor does it have such a powerful and effective mechanism for ensuring that the compliance programmes are carried out according to plan and date. If a water company defaults on its undertaking for no good reason, the Secretary of State will be obliged to take enforcement action, which could ultimately lead to the loss of a company's licence. That is, of course, a last resort, but the threat is there. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.
I shall invite the House to disagree with Lords amendments Nos. 62 to 64 at the appropriate time because they are seriously flawed in a number of respects. They are

the result of the famous ambush one night in another place, when Opposition peers turned up late and in large numbers, although I make no complaint about that—[Interruption.] I have organised such events in previous incarnations. However, it does not give any respectability to the argument in favour of the amendments.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: It is interesting that the Secretary of State thinks that the amendments were carried in another place only because of an ambush. If he is so confident that the other place would have agreed with his position had it known that the vote would take place, why did he not try to reverse the decision in the Lords?

Mr. Ridley: I am not skilled in the procedures of another place, but I am informed that their Lordships preferred the matter to be dealt with the other way.
Amendments Nos. 62 to 64 specify 1 September 1993 for compliance with the drinking water directive. However, specifying such a date in legislation is contrary to the directive, which set a much earlier date in 1985. The only possible legal duty must be to comply now, and the Bill provides for that through the regulations made under clause 65, setting quality standards, and under the duty placed on undertakers in clause 52 to provide wholesome water.
We propose a much tighter legal requirement than that in the amendments, as wholesomeness extends beyond the standards specified in the directive. To leave the Lords amendments in the Bill would create doubt about the undertakers' responsibility in that very important respect. We already have a perfectly adequate mechanism in the Bill to ensure that supplies that do not yet meet the requirements are brought up to standard as quickly as practicable—the enforcement duty placed on the Secretary of State in clause 20. That clause was amended in another place to put it beyond doubt that it is fully consistent with European law, and that it has the agreement of the House as well as the European Commission. Water undertakers must agree to take steps acceptable to the Secretary of State to secure or facilitate compliance with Community directive requirements. If they do not, I am bound to take enforcement action.
We are all in agreement that the necessary steps should be taken as quickly as possible, and the Government have given a public commitment to do so. On 15 May, my noble Friend Lord Hesketh made an explicit commitment in another place that I am happy to repeat. The Government are fully committed to complying with the drinking water directive and will accept undertakings under clause 20(5)(b) only if satisfied that they contain proposals for achieving compliance as quickly as possible, taking the practicalities into account.
The amendments ignore the question of practicality. Large investment programmes cannot be carried out overnight for very practical reasons that have nothing to do with the money involved. We all agree that we must avoid, for example, severe disruption of water supplies while work is carried out. We must avoid putting people's health at risk during that time, and ensure that necessary planning approvals have been obtained. We must allow time for projects to be planned and designed properly. In the case of nitrate and pesticides, we must ensure that new technology has been tested and proven. So far, it has not. Those essential factors must be taken into account, which means that timetables must be set for every individual case. A single date for compliance across the country


would completely ignore that requirement. In some cases it would mean slowing down improvements, and in others jeopardising the health of customers. I am sure that that is not something that the House would want to happen.
The amendments are flawed for other reasons. Regulations made under them would automatically entitle customers to a payment if any of the quality standards was exceeded after 1993, which ignores certain scientific facts. It is not technically possible to guarantee 100 per cent. compliance with standards that have nothing to do with health but affect the taste and appearance of the water. Standards for colour, turbidity and iron can be exceeded simply because of a change in water pressure or because of an unexpectedly large demand for water, perhaps due to a fire in the area. In such instances there is no justification for making payments to customers, as the undertaker is not technically able to do anything about them—and the change in quality may barely be noticeable. Nor would there be any justification for making payments if the customer caused the breach by using, for example, excessive nitrate or pesticides on his land in the catchment area of the water source and then claimed compensation for the effect that it had on his water supply.
Amendments Nos. 62 to 64 are impracticable because they give enormous scope for dispute over whether payment is due. If the lead standard is breached there could be a dispute as to whether it was due to the customer's or the undertaker's lead pipe, or even over how the sample was taken. If the microbiological standard is breached in one sample, there could be a dispute as to whether it was due to contamination in the house or at the treatment works. If the sample was taken by the customer, for how much would it count? What if analysis showed that the water was just over the standard? Even the best analytical technique is not very precise. There are many other common instances of how disputes and injustices could arise.
The basis of our guaranteed standard scheme is that it will be simple to operate and easy for the customer to understand, and will provide a no-nonsense form of redress. The Lords amendments would produce the opposite.
I apologise for taking so much time, but it was necessary to explain the Government's position in respect of both groups of amendments. To sum up, amendments Nos. 62 to 64 are flawed, impracticable and impossible to implement. The House would be wise not to agree with them.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for agreeing to take the group headed by amendment No. 62 with that headed by amendment No. 44, because it is right to debate the effect of the directive's implementation at the same time as we discuss its transposition into our own legislation.
The Secretary of State's concluding remarks do not convince me that he is taking the problem of drinking water quality seriously enough. The problems that concern the European Community and consumers in this country are not related simply to appearance and taste but range from lead in Scotland, nitrate in Norwich and aluminium in Bradford, Calderdale and other parts of Yorkshire, to nitrate in Redbridge, and to problems in Birmingham in the west midlands as well. None of them is a minor

problem, and they all usually arise when there is a breakdown in the system, because the backlog in investment has not been cleared since the directive was introduced in 1980.
Opposition amendment (a) aims at exploring and suggesting ways in which defects in water supplies can be reported. The Government amendments attempt to effect the transposition of the drinking water quality directive into our own legislation. As that is something that we suggested in Committee, we welcome it—although at that time such a provision was rejected by the Minister for Water and Planning. We all accept that the directive should be incorporated in British law, but that takes us no further forward in implementing Community standards. My noble Friends in another place were able to persuade their Lordships to accept amendments to implement the directive by 1993. The Government's amendments take us no further towards achieving that goal. That is why we learned with dismay of the Government's intention to overturn the Lords amendments.
Drinking water quality is a matter of major public concern, and one that has an added dimension in terms of Britain's relationship with the EEC. It is a matter of regret that so many individuals in this country have found it necessary to voice their concern about drinking water standards to the Community because they do not believe that they can look to the Government to protect them. That aspect has prompted some of the most remarkable statements ever uttered by the Minister in Committee. Right hon. and hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee missed a number of gems. I suggest that they read Hansard to follow the Minister's strangely convoluted logic.
In 1980 the British Government were willing parties to an EC directive—No. 80/778/EEC—on the quality of drinking water for human consumption. That directive laid down the parameters for the maximum levels of certain substances to be permitted in drinking water, and was due to be implemented some four years ago in 1985.
8 pm
In Committee we pressed the Minister of State about his plans and expectations for meeting EC standards. Throughout our proceedings his response was somewhat mixed and contradictory, and I do not think that the Secretary of State has done much better this evening. We are told that the standards will be observed, although the Government have repeatedly used delaying tactics in Brussels to put off the evil day—as they see it—when the commitment has to be met. I suspect that they have simply been playing for time to delay the day when the EC takes further legal action against this country for noncompliance, which I fear is what it will come to in the end.
The Minister of State has promoted the idea—only in this country, not in Brussels—that the parameters of the drinking water directive of 1980 are to be relaxed. In Committee he told us that relaxation was likely, and, perhaps to match his ignorance about sewage—he said that if people could not see so much sewage that they did not want to swim in the sea, there was no danger—set himself up as a medical expert on drinking water and told us not to worry about aluminium. He told Labour Members that they were "scaremongering" when they expressed concern about aluminium levels in water and about the possible link with Alzheimer's disease. The Minister's PPS—who, unlike the Minister, is here this


evening—took comfort from the fact that the Minister was able to tell us that people were not dying. That was one of the rare contributions that he was allowed to make to the Committee proceedings.
EC officials in the relevant department in Brussels, directly responsible for the implementation and review of the parameters of the drinking water directive, have said that in no circumstances will a general relaxation of standards be allowed. There may be some clearer specifications of the individual parameters for certain pesticides, which are currently the subject of a general pesticide parameter, but the only change that the Commission seeks for aluminium is a tightening rather than a relaxation of standards. I had hoped that the Minister of State would pursue that in Brussels last week, but I do not believe that he did.
I cannot believe that the message from EC officials as to their attitude on relaxations has not been transmitted to Ministers by their officials. We can only conclude that the Minister has chosen to ignore the facts. I think that I accept the Commission's view that the Government are using the regulatory committee as an excuse for delaying tactics. We do not have even the standards aimed at in the 1980 directive, and we should ask what is the purpose of the Government's amendments if the Government will not agree a reasonable timetable to meet the directive. If, later this evening, the Government move to reject the Lords amendment on the 1993 deadline—as we understand that they will—we shall have made very little progress. The Government seem to think that it is easier to whip Members in this House than in the other place, which is no doubt why they have chosen to overturn the amendment here rather than there.
I believe that the reason why the Government will not allow the amendment to stand is that a privatised water industry will not wish to be saddled with such commitments and liabilities. That tells us that the Government's priorities are clearly decided. Their main priority is not to safeguard the drinking water supplies of the estimated 10·8 million people whose water does not meet EC standards, but to ensure that nothing stops the sale from proceeding. As interest, even in the City, is luke warm to say the least—as we heard earlier, and have read in The Observer and other serious newspapers—the Government want to make the British people put up with any standards to avoid damaging the prospects for the sale. If Conservative Members feel comfortable about voting for such priorities, their constituents will know where they stand. They will know that their interests are second to Conservative Members' anxiety to sell the industry and to obey the Government Whips.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: May I ask the hon. Lady two questions? First, is the Bill in its totality putting standards up or down? Secondly, what advantage would be secured by the imposition of the 1993 deadline?

Mrs. Taylor: I intend to tell the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends shortly why we need the deadline, but the totality of the Bill is certainly not intended to protect consumers or to raise standards. At an early stage we offered to support part I to establish and, indeed, strengthen the National Rivers Authority, but all our attempts were rejected by the Government. That gives a clear indication of their priorities as well as explaining their decision to vote down our proposals.

Mr. Keith Raffan: The hon. Lady says that the Bill will not take any steps to protect the consumer, but it makes it a criminal offence to supply drinking water that is unfit for human consumption. That has never happened before. Why does the hon. Lady not talk about the Bill instead of delivering the fiction that we have been hearing for the past 15 minutes?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee, although he probably did not make as many interventions in that time as he has made here. I do not think that he was taking the Bill very seriously then. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) says that the hon. Gentleman has only just come back into the Chamber. Nevertheless, he is allowed to intervene, and I gave way to him willingly. If he would care to listen, I will tell him exactly why it is important to write the 1993 deadline into the Bill.
The Government signed and agreed to the 1980 directive without dissent, and that directive should have been met in 1985. We shall vote later for the retention of the 1993 deadline not because we think it perfect, but because we wish that the Government had done more since 1980. Earlier, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) talked about what he saw as the faults of a Labour Government, but even he will have to admit that the Conservatives have been in power since 1980 and that all the failures to abide by the 1980 directive lie at their door.

Mr. Ridley: The directive was first published in 1975, and the Labour party negotiated for four years, supporting it all the way through. Can the hon. Lady say what the Labour Government did to begin to implement it, apart from cutting investment in the water industry by 30 per cent.?

Mrs. Taylor: I freely admit that the Labour Government who left office in 1979 did nothing to implement the 1980 EC directive, but it would have been quite remarkable if we had been able to implement a directive that had not even been written.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor: Perhaps I could finish this point.
I do not know what plans the Government have made to meet future directives. The last Labour Government claimed many things, but they never claimed clairvoyance or that they could meet directives which had not at that time been written.
We shall vote for the retention of the 1993 deadline. Without the deadline, progress towards implementation will slip even further. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has just left the Chamber, said that he thought that the Secretary of State was sending out the wrong signals after some of his decisions relating to consents. I think that the Secretary of State is sending all the wrong signals to the privatised water companies. They will lack any incentive—incentive and profit are what privatisation is all about—to improve the quality of their drinking water, because they will not be selling more water after privatisation. Unless we write a deadline into the Bill, the timetable will slip even further.

Mr. Riddick: The hon. Lady cleverly evaded the question about the 1975 directive by saying that the


Labour Government could not take responsibility for the 1980 directive. Will she explain whether the Labour Government, who were in power between 1974 and 1979, were responsible for the capital investment cuts of 30 per cent. which took place during those years?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman was not listening to his hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), who said that the directive was first drafted in 1975. It was not agreed until 1980.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) asked me to refer to capital expenditure, and I am happy to do so. I carry in my pocket the investment figures throughout the 1970s and 1980s. If the hon. Gentleman wants a copy so that he can pin it on the wall of his office to stop him asking such silly questions, I will gladly send him one. He is my own Member of Parliament and I think that he should be informed about the matter. I have the misfortune to live in his constituency—a nice place, though it is a pity about its Member of Parliament. Average investment under the last Labour Government was £1,254 million per year. Average investment under this Government is £922 million per year. I trust that the hon. Gentleman, who takes an interest in these matters and who has tried to defend the Government, will take that point on board.
The Secretary of State said that he would advise hon. Members to turn down the 1993 amendment. As he put it, and as the Minister of State put it to the Commissioner last week, the Government believe that they must turn down the 1993 deadline because it breaches EC law, since that standard should have been met in 1985. That is typical of the Minister of State's frequently observed convoluted logic. If that is the best that Ministers can do, the standard will not be met in the near future. It shows that they are not serious about the problem.
The Minister of State had his first meeting with the Commissioner in Brussels last week. I understand that it was a polite meeting—not surprisingly, since the Commissioner is a very charming man—but the Minister seems to have been unable to convince anyone in Brussels of his case that the Government are doing everything possible to reach the required standards. Similarly, he has been unable to convince Members of Parliament or the British people generally.
We shall be watching for further developments in the Commission. I am sure that potential investors in a privatised water industry will be reluctant to part with any money—assuming that the Government sell the industry and do not just give it away—if they believe that further action will be taken by the European Community because of the water industry's failure to reach the required standard.
8.15 pm
That brings me to the question of reporting standards. The European Community is receiving more and more complaints from ordinary consumers about the state of their drinking water. I understand that it has difficulty in processing all the complaints as quickly as it would like, at a time when most of those who are drinking sub-standard water do not even know that it is sub-standard—hence our amendment to the Government's amendment, which is designed to introduce a reporting system so that each year

we shall quickly be able to find out where there are problems with supplies which are below EC standards and why they fail to meet those standards. Everyone has a right to be told about the state of their drinking water—and a right to expect action to be taken at the earliest possible moment to put it right.
The Minister of State and the Secretary of State have adopted a policy of keeping people in the dark, so far as possible, with regard to problems over drinking water. The Minister of State refused to give details of his discussions in Brussels. Ministers have even refused to put reasoned opinions in the House of Commons Library. They have also refused to publish responses to reasoned opinions. This is not a private matter for discussion between Ministers and Brussels. It concerns everyone in this country—certainly the 10·8 million people whose water supplies are sub-standard.
If the Secretary of State overturns the 1993 deadline, he will reduce the impact of his own amendments, starting with amendment No. 44. The Government's amendments will not convince anyone. I am certain that they will not convince the Commission that the Government are taking the problem seriously enough. If the Secretary of State rejects the 1993 deadline, he will be sending a very clear signal to the British people about what they can expect from the privatised water industry. We believe that water purity and drinking water standards should come first. That is why we shall try to insist that the 1993 deadline stays in the Bill.

Mr. Riddick: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) told the House that I am her Member of Parliament and suggested that that might be a little unfortunate from her point of view. It is even more unfortunate from my point of view, because she is my Member of Parliament. She once turned down my offer, put in jest, that at the next general election I would vote for her to boost her majority if she would vote for me to boost mine. She turned my offer down, and I am very glad that she did. We had a good joke about it.
However, it worries me that the hon. Member for Dewsbury keeps coming out with a great deal of black propaganda and misleading information about water privatisation. As we are near-neighbours, we share the same local newspaper, the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, and many of those misleading facts find their way into that newspaper.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They are not facts. They are unfacts.

Hon. Members: "Faction".

Mr. Riddick: I am most grateful to my hon. Friends for improving my English. The word "faction" will suffice. The hon. Member for Dewsbury seems to spend a great deal of time running down Britain's water industry by portraying Britain as the dirty man of Europe and by suggesting that there has been no investment in the water industry in recent years. Yet the previous Labour Government cut capital investment in the water industry by some 30 per cent.
The hon. Lady was talking about the average investment between 1974 and 1979. When the Labour party came to power in 1974 it inherited the high investment levels set by the Conservative Government of 1970 to 1974. When the Labour Government left office in


1979 the level of investment had reduced considerably. The present Conservative Government have had to make up the lost ground as a direct result of the cuts imposed by the Labour Government in the late 1970s. As we know, the Conservative Government have been responsible for increasing capital expenditure by about 50 per cent. since 1980.
I am happy to support the Government in disagreeing with Lords amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 64. It amazes me that the Opposition are happy to get into bed with the European Commission, for reasons of political expediency, when it suits them. If ever the Opposition get into Government, they will regret that. There are already perfectly adequate safeguards in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the water plcs will have to give undertakings that they will do whatever is necessary to comply with the requirements of the EC directives. If they do not, the Secretary of State will be forced to take action.
The debate about our water industry complying with the EC directives needs to be put into perspective. The British water industry has nothing to be ashamed of, although privatisation will lead to even greater improvements and more investment because the privatised industries will be able to raise, from the private money markets, more money to invest in the industry.
When comparisons are made with the rest of Europe, the British water industry comes out pretty well. Most supplies of drinking water in Britain comply with the 66 parameters of the European Commission drinking water directive covering taste and appearance as well as safety. All European countries have difficulty reaching 100 per cent. compliance with the directive. I understand that infringement proceedings are at various stages in respect of several European countries, including Germany, Italy, France and Belgium.
If one listened to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and read all her statements in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, one would imagine that rivers in the United Kingdom must be the dirtiest in Europe, but the opposite is true. In England and Wales, 66 per cent. of rivers were in class 1, the highest classification. That compares with 39 per cent. for Europe as a whole. France scored only 35 per cent. Taking classes 1, good, and 2, reasonable, together, the figures become even more interesting. The United Kingdom scored 94 per cent., bettered only by the Netherlands with 95 per cent. That is certainly a lot better than Germany at 84·5 per cent., Greece at 80 per cent. and France which is estimated to score less than 80 per cent.
The proportion of domestic sewage treated in the United Kingdom was one of the highest in Europe at 83 per cent.—bettered only by Sweden, Denmark and Germany. The water industry in Britain has nothing whatever to be ashamed of and the Government have provided a great deal of investment in the industry in the past 10 years.

Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that our record would be even better had the Labour Government implemented part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and if they had kept a central record of sewage discharges? They never did that, so they did not know which sewage treatment works were discharging illegally. That was the extent of their concern.

Mr. Riddick: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention which is absolutely true. I suspect that the Labour Government failed to do that because of incompetence, because they could not afford to invest the appropriate money in the industry and, as my hon. Friend said, because they did not care.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I must point out, for the elucidation of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), that last week when the legal notices of the relaxation for consents under the Control of Pollution Act were published in our local newspaper, I rang up the new prototype NRA office of the Welsh water authority and asked why a sewage works in my constituency—the Drope sewage works—had been mentioned. I was advised that it had been included by mistake. The following week it appeared in the legal notice in the newspaper again by mistake. They do not know what they are doing.

Mr. Riddick: That intervention added nothing to the debate.

Mr. Alun Michael: May I inform the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) that I asked similar questions of the Welsh Office and the Minister seemed equally ignorant about what is happening on these derogations?

Mr. Riddick: I am chuffed that Opposition Members should imagine that I know all about events taking place in Wales. I do not, as I represent a Yorkshire constituency. The Labour Government's record was lamentable and nothing can hide that. Despite all their interventions, Opposition Members cannot hide the fact that when they were in government their record was absolutely appalling.
I conclude by pointing out that hon. Members and consumers in Yorkshire have a great deal to be proud of. The Yorkshire water authority is certainly concerned to improve the quality of the area's drinking water. New plants are being developed and are under construction. A new water treatment plant is currently commissioned somewhere in Yorkshire every six to nine months. That trend is expected to continue for another five years. One of the new treatment plants is in my constituency—at Blackmoorfoot.
If the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979 had not cut investment in the industry, we should be even further ahead. That is why 1993 is unrealistic. I am happy to support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby tonight and I hope that he will continue to point out that many of our problems today are a direct result of the lack of investment all those years ago. Although my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have done their best to improve matters over the past 10 years, we cannot do everything overnight. I certainly hope that by 1995 drinking water in Britain will be of a far higher quality than it was 10 or 15 years ago.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Having listened to the speech of the Secretary of State, we are under no delusions about the nature of the debate. Labour Members recognised the complacency that has been a feature of the past decade of Conservative control of the water industry. Listening to the Secretary of State, I almost thought that a problem had appeared in the past year and that suddenly, to everyone's surprise, the Commission had introduced a directive on water quality standards, without consultation, to be implemented within a short time.
The Secretary of State told us that the Government took the directive seriously, that they had a long-term programme, and that they would make improvements as quickly as possible. He then said that improvements would be made as soon as reasonably practicable. The truth is that the Secretary of State runs a mile when a deadline for work to be completed appears. His complacency is underlined by the fact that currently about 11 million people in the United Kingdom are drinking water that does not comply with European Community standards, which for some poses risks to health. The Secretary of State might not want to face that possibility, but it is true that over the past decade the Government could have complied with the directive.
8.30 pm
The Government are still insisting that 1993 is too soon to expect compliance with the directive. The Secretary of State said that the Commissioner—my former colleague in the European Parliament, Carlo Ripa di Meana—had stated that he did not expect the Government to comply with the directive overnight. The directive has been bandied about for a decade or more, and it is said that a week is a long time in politics, but I never thought that "overnight" meant four or five years, which is the Government's interpretation of the Commissioner's timescale. The Commissioner does not expect compliance overnight, or within a year or two. The date of 1 September 1993 would be acceptable to the Commission. The idea that that date cannot be included in the legislation because it is a breach of the directive is almost Jesuitical. It has not stopped the Secretary of State's colleagues giving dates in parliamentary answers, such as one that I received recently from the Welsh Office. When I asked about derogations covering the water supply in Wales, I was told:
The need for most of the derogations should be removed by 1990 and all by 1995 at the latest.
The Welsh Office was not shy about mentioning dates.
It is interesting to note the theme of complacency in a further answer that I received. I asked the Secretary of State for Wales to give the main population centres affected by derogation in Wales and how many people were drinking water which did not meet European Community standards. The answer was that most of the supply areas were rural parts of Wales—Gwynedd, north Dyfed and south Powys—and showed that the Welsh Office did not have a clue about the number of people who were drinking water which did not meet European Community standards. Such was and is the Government's concern. The same level of concern was reflected in the speech of the Secretary of State this evening. He said that the Government would comply with the directive one day, "but for goodness sake do not give us a deadline, even if it is four years away."
Complacency is apparent throughout the water industry in Wales. When I asked about the discharging of effluent from sewage treatment works, I simply asked the Secretary of State to list the relaxations and amendments that the Welsh water authority had requested. I was told that the applications made by the Welsh water authority
will reflect the current performance of individual works". —[Official Report, 12 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 306.]
When I further asked the Secretary of State which applications would result in discharge standards being

relaxed or tightened, I was told on 15 June that the Welsh Office was unaware whether applications would improve the position or worsen it and that eventually a copy of the Secretary of State's reply would be placed in the Library. To date, that reply has not surfaced.
I should have thought that it would be simple for a Government who boast so many achievements to comply with the EC directive in four years' time. I hope that even at this late stage the Secretary of State for the Environment will realise that all consumers would welcome such a commitment. Why is the Secretary of State not prepared to make such a commitment? The only argument that I could pick out from his speech was that if the directive was complied with by 1993 it would cause disruption of the water supply. He did not offer a date by which the work could be completed without disruption, but I wonder whether he knows when the directive will be complied with. If he does, he should share that secret with us, with the consumers and with the prospective purchasers of the water authorities.
The Secretary of State may have given the game away in an aside some time ago when answering my question on compliance with the directives on drinking and bathing water quality. I suggested that it might cost about £2 billion or £3 billion to comply with both directives in full. The Secretary of State said that it would probably cost much more than that. A recent estimate suggests that it could be as much as £15 billion. If the Secretary of State has a figure, I should be interested to know how much it will cost to comply with the drinking and bathing water directives, particularly the drinking water directive as it is the subject of this debate. The only reason why the Secretary of State is being a shrinking violet about accepting 1993 as a reasonable date to meet the directive is that the cost would be so exorbitant that no right-minded person would dare to invest in shares in the water authorities. If the amendment is accepted, I hope that the full costs of compliance with the directive will be published in the prospectus to be issued for the sale of the water authorities.
I do not believe that the Commission will accept a deadline beyond September 1993. That assertion is backed up by considering the experience of the Italians. The Commission maintained that, for one major scheme in the Po valley, the problems should be solved within two years. The Italian authorities decided that it would be in the interests of public health for that two-year programme to be met even though it meant a huge investment in the Po valley to deal with the nitrate problem. What is sauce for Italy will be sauce for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman content with the fact that the Italians appear to be confining their activities to the Po valley and leaving the rest of the country undisturbed?

Mr. Griffiths: That is not true. The Po valley project was undertaken because it was the top priority for the Italian Government. In the coming year the Italian Government, after discussions with the Commission, will be_introducing further programmes to meet the directive before 1993.
If the Secretary of State were truly concerned about the health of some 11 million people in the United Kingdom,


he would gladly grasp the date of September 1993 as a reasonable one by which privatised water companies should aim to achieve compliance.

Sir Giles Shaw: I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in disagreeing with Lords amendment No. 63. I have not always had the pleasure of supporting my right hon. Friend in such matters. He will recall that, from time to time, we have differed on certain issues in connection with the Bill. In this instance, however, he is absolutely right to bring this matter to a halt with a vote in this House.
Much has been made of the fact that the directive in question was published in 1980 after about five years of draft status. As I recall it, much time was spent after 1980 seeking derogation from and changes to the directive. I even remember playing a modest part in that. At the time, the water industry would have found it virtually impossible to meet all the conditions laid down in the directive, and the United Kingdom water industry was not alone in that predicament. Water industries throughout the Community are still in major default of the directive as it currently stands. Litigation is under way in most Community countries, with the possible exception of Portugal.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not advocating that because the situation is bad in other countries we should not bother to hurry up and set a deadline to meet the directive here?

Sir Giles Shaw: That intervention scarcely deserves any reply. Every country is having difficulty in meeting the directive and I commend the bravery of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who suddenly determined that the directive should be accepted in full despite the fact that the United Kingdom water industry would have extreme difficulty in achieving compliance with all its aspects.
Within the directive, 66 different elements have to be met. The vast majority, as members of the Standing Committee know, have to do with matters of appearance and colour rather than matters affecting health or toxicity. The elements which affect those two aspects, however, must be met. The vast majority of water undertakings currently meet the vast majority of the elements in the directive. We are dealing with not wholesale misapplication of the directive, but the misapplication of certain portions of the directive which cannot yet be met, in most cases because the water undertakings have been starved of capital investment for many years. I do not lay the blame for that on the Labour Administration alone. Water undertakings, whether under municipal ownership or other guises, have never had the renewal of assets so essential for a modern distribution and treatment system.
8.45 pm
The particular issue before the House now is whether the 1993 recommendation of their Lordships should proceed without further ado. That recommendation would bring forward the application of the entire directive by two years. The difference between 1993 and 1995 would be superficial at most. It would not make a great deal of difference to the investing public who, in this instance, have to look at a long-term investment in an industry which will have greater control over price, profitability and various other activities than any other industry brought

into the private sector in recent years. I do not believe that it is too great an exaggeration to say that. This is hardly a privatisation of the kind that other industries have enjoyed. The water industry will be moved from the public sector into a controlled private sector. The limits on the activities of the privatised industry will be much stricter than those which currently exist in the public sector. The Opposition should recognise that.
The 1995 arrangement agreed to by my right hon. Friend in discussion with the Community is absolutely the earliest date at which all the elements in the directive can be met because of the scale of investment required and the manner in which the directive will be applied. In future, 100 per cent. of samples of water content, rather than an average sample, will have to meet the directive.
The industry has had to look with real concern at just how much would be involved not just in investment, but in the management of the undertaking while that investment is made. Because of that combination of factors, the time scale is crucial. It is not a matter of backing down from the directive, going for the sales material to support privatisation or seeking to undermine public confidence in the health of British water—rather the industry is having to embark, within a relatively short time, on an entirely new method of measurement and a higher standard of filtering and refining its products. At the same time it must supply the entire United Kingdom with potable water, day in, day out. It is not too much to ask that 1995 be the date for such a programme.

Mr. Livsey: We are deliberating on one of the key issues of the Bill. We are trying to reach across an impossible chasm. We must raise the environmental standard of drinking water and try to keep down prices to the consumer while at the same time the Government's objective is to make the industry sufficiently attractive to investors. I appreciate the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) about the time limit, which is crucial in respect of the three objectives that I have highlighted. How can the gap be bridged when so much capital investment has to be made within a specific time?
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned a number of figures relating to the amount of investment which might be required to clean up the water industry. One such figure is £6 billion. That is an awful lot of money, but if the Government are serious about meeting EEC water standards they must set an investment target. One would have thought that the Lords amendment set a reasonable target. The problem is the history, which has been described in exchanges from the Dispatch Boxes earlier in the debate about who did what and when. The problem was caused by a lack of investment in the water industry which was part of Treasury policy. There is a maxim that one starves the industry first by not funding it adequately and then finds reasons to privatise it. That is what has happened to the water industry.
The previous investment programme has been strangled by the Treasury. The lack of investment has caused the Government to say that the only way round the problem is that, as they have saved so much money which could have been spent putting matters right, they now have to privatise the industry to try to find other sources of


money for necessary investment. That is an abrogation of the responsibility of managing a public industry such as water.
Lords amendment No. 64, with which the Secretary of State disagrees, puts the Government on the hook and in this debate we must not let them off the hook. Lords amendment No. 64 says:
Where no such agreement has been reached by the date referred to in paragraph (a) above, 1st September 1993.
As other speakers have said, that is a perfectly reasonable date to which to adhere. If the Government put their mind to it, the industry could adhere to the EC directives by that time. It has already been mentioned that 11 million people in England and Wales have drinking water that does not meet the EC directive on drinking water quality standards. That is lamentable. I should have thought that any Government who accepted a decent amount of responsibility would seek to put that right as early as possible. Surely a date four years hence is not too close.
It is realistic to expect that Lords amendment No. 64 should be met. We must think about the quality of drinking water of those 11 million consumers. One million households are supplied with water with a nitrate content in excess of EC standards and nitrate protection zones have been identified in different parts of the country. Friends of the Earth has found breaches of pesticide limits in almost 300 water sources and samples. Those matters affect human health and should be of concern to us all.
There are ways of getting around those problems by improved technology and by overcoming the necessity to apply as much nitrogen as was applied in the past. We could produce new products less lethal than some of the pesticides which one used now or have only recently been banned. Solvents are also becoming a problem and evidence is emerging that they are accumulating in aquifers as well. Trace elements such as aluminium have become an increasing problem, with more than 40 areas of the country falling outside the EC standard. That is the challenge that would face any Government in cleaning up drinking water supplies. The House of Lords has set a reasonable target of 1993 by which the standards should be met.

Mr. Roger Knapman: The Lords amendments deal with standards and the date by which it is possible to achieve them. Ninety per cent. of our rivers are in the top two standards. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) on the matter. I must ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister whether we always get our sense of priorities right. One or two rivers are still dirty, such as the Rother, which was mentioned often in Committee, and the Mersey, but at the same time the Thames has been much cleaned up. I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend has got matters the right way round. Many years ago, the House had to rise early for the summer recess because the Thames used to stink. Perhaps it might have been done the other way round.
I regret that the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) have still not been answered. She was asked how the previous Labour Government discharged their responsibilities for monitoring pollution by sewage treatment works when

they kept no records of the adequacy of their performance. He also asked why the Labour Government kept details of the discharge consent applications secret from the public and refused to let the public participate in the process of granting them.
The Opposition are determined to show themselves as green, despite an appalling record that included 30 per cent. cuts in capital expenditure. Their concern did not extend to the Committee stage. If one examines the Committee proceedings, there is barely a mention of concern about these matters—at least, at the appropriate time. It seems that the Labour party wishes to do away with the House of Lords, but in this instance and many others, unless it had had that long stop to bring up these issues, they would not have been debated at all, despite all the time available. At least the Lords raised these issues.

Mr. Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Committee stage was guillotined, truncating debate on many matters of great importance?

Mr. Knapman: I was a member of that Committee and I would not call 180 hours of debate truncated, although the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion.
Investment in water and sewerage works has always been delayed while they have been in the public sector. It is, after all, much easier to say that they have been there since Victorian times and that another year or two will not matter, so there is no need to bother. It is probably true to say that there has been some delay in those matters under Governments of all complexions. It is equally true to say that the rivers Rother and Mersey did not become polluted last week or in 1979. They have been polluted for many decades and, at long last, there is a chance that they will be cleaned and that drinking water quality will be improved.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister has acknowledged that vast sums need to be spent and he has never hidden the fact that water charges will need to rise above the rate of inflation to meet that expenditure. However, I remind their Lordships that passing an Act in this place does not take any practical steps towards achieving better standards. Our discussions do not take any practical steps towards modernising one sewage works, one water works, any old pipes or faulty stop cocks. It is little use to pass Acts if they cannot be complied with and passing Acts that cannot be complied with can only bring this place into disrepute. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to say that these matters must be determined by what is practical.
I suspect that the true costs will be measured in many hundreds of millions of pounds. New works should be not only built, but designed to the highest standards, and in some cases planning permission will have to be obtained. Even if every firm of builders and civil engineers in this country were to set about such tasks—since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has said that an extra £12 billion will be spent on the roads, it is not a likely event—complying with the standards would take considerable time. The only chance of the standards being complied with is if private funds are introduced; without them the works would not be undertaken.
My hon. and learned Friend's proposals are in line with the EEC's drinking water directive. Hon. Members can see in the Library a letter from Carlo Ripa di Meana, which states:
We had expressed concern about the provisions of clause 20(5)(b) and the scope it gave the Secretary of State to allow


water companies to continue to supply water which did not meet all the requirements of the Drinking Water Directive. I am pleased to say that these discussions have now come to a satisfactory conclusion. The amendments which you have tabled to clause 20, along with the statement which I understand to have been made when introducing these amendments in the House of Lords, satisfy me that the UK Government intends to rectify any deficiencies in water supplies as quickly as possible taking certain practicalities into account.
That is the crux of the matter and that is the view of the European Commission. The letter is in the Library for all hon. Members to see.
9 pm
In Committee my hon. and learned Friend said that he was not seeking merely to comply with the European Commission's directive. At column 1045 he stated:
The Commission has proposed the setting up of a committee of adaptation to review standards, which were drawn up without any proper toxicological basis. Indeed, some concentrations are standard across the board. The changes that the United Kingdom Government seek to achieve relate to the toxicological properties of different substances."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D; 14 February 1989, c. 1045–46.]
We seek to achieve even higher standards than has been suggested by the European Commission.
Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm that, as regards the wholesomeness of water, we propose a much tighter legal requirement than that proposed in the European directive? I am sure that the Bill contains a perfectly adequate mechanism for ensuring that the supplies that do not yet meet the requirements are brought up to standard as quickly as possible. I believe that my right hon. Friend has said that, but I did not catch exactly what he said. Will he confirm that that enforcement duty will be placed on the Secretary of State by clause 20?
With those points in mind, I say to my right hon. Friend, "Keep on being practical and at long last standards will he improved."

Mr. Eric Martlew: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) has left the Chamber because he referred to the bravery of the Secretary of State and that reminded me of the first occasion when I met the hon. Gentleman. He had just finished swimming in the sea off Sellafield after a major radiation leak. The personal bravery of the hon. Gentleman is therefore not in question, but obviously his judgment must be. However, I must admit that he is looking well and repeat that I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment.
I shall concentrate on the issue of drinking water quality and compliance by 1993 or by another date agreed by the EEC. Tonight the Government are trying to overturn sensible and well-thought-out amendments that have been put forward by their Lordships. The Lords amendments propose that drinking water in the United Kingdom should conform to standards required by EC directive 80/778 by one of two dates: either 1 December 1993—on which we have tended to concentrate this evening—or by a date agreed mutually between the Secretary of State and the EEC Commission.
By their actions this evening it seems that the Government are saying that the EEC have told them that it is not prepared to wait any longer for the Government to take action and that they cannot come to a mutually agreed date before 1993. The inference is that the EEC is telling the Government to get on with compliance immediately, or at least quickly. If that is a wrong

interpretation, I am sure that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will tell us so. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the EEC Commissioner has told him because the Government are refusing to put in the Library answers to our questions.
It is important that Britain's water is cleaned up. The directive was agreed in 1980. We have heard a lot about the Labour Government not agreeing to the directive, but we were not in power then. The directive became law in 1982 and its standards should have been achieved by 1985. What faith can we have in a Secretary of State who tells the House that at some time in the future the Government will comply with the directive when the Government have been breaking the law for nearly five years?
The Government have not been able to convince the EEC Commissioners or the people of this country. Indeed, a substantial minority of our population now has to put up with suspect water. It was only recently that Mr. Michael Carney, the secretary of the Water Authorities Association —who will probably be Sir Michael before too long—admitted that 10·8 million consumers are affected by water that does not meet the standards required by the EEC. Some of that water contains dangerous levels of lead, nitrates, aluminium and pesticides—a list to which we must now add protein, as I understand that people in the Thames area had to put up with worms coming through their taps. That situation was described yesterday evening on the television programme, "Spitting Image", on which a worm said that the only danger lay in drinking the water.
It is not only the Thames area that suffers. My own region, the North-west water authority region, has similar problems. According to a parliamentary answer of 7 February, areas whose water supplies currently failed to meet the standards set out in the European Community directive on the quality of drinking water included parts of Chester, parts of Congleton, all of Southport, Formby, the High Peak district, Stockport, Bolton, Tameside, Oldham, Rochdale, Rossendale, Burnley, Hyndburn, Carlisle district, excluding the city, the Eden district, Osmotherley, Urswick, Barrow in Furness, Lancaster, Ribble valley, Fylde district and Fleetwood. It would have been easier to name the areas that were getting satisfactory water. We have some terrible problems in the north-west.
On 5 June my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and I were in a valley called Mungrisdale in the Lake District. There we were in the most beautiful part of the country on a beautiful early summer's day, yet we realised that, according to EEC standards, the water in that area is not fit for villagers to drink. That was during the European election campaign. In Cumbria, as in the rest of the country, water privatisation was a matter of major political controversy and I believe that it was water privatisation that brought down the Conservative majority in Cumbria and North Lancashire from 23,000 to 2,000. When that swing is repeated at the general election, the Labour party will capture the town of Barrow and the city of Lancaster.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend has referred to the European constituency of Cumbria and North Lancashire. He will know that there was considerable concern among those living on the Fylde coast about the proposed long sewer outfall proposed at Rossall point. Having addressed a public meeting there, I feel sure that my hon. Friend's


claim that concern about water was one of the reasons why we considerably reduced the Conservative's majority is correct.

Mr. Martlew: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I should not be surprised if we took Fylde at the next general election if the Government continue as they are.
No doubt Conservative Members would argue that the fact that there was a debate and falling out among leading Conservatives helped to lose the Conservatives the European elections. But it was not the washing of dirty linen in public that caused the problems; it was the fact that they left the dirty water for the people to drink.
The Prime Minister has been saying at the Royal show at Stoneleigh that the Government propose to introduce a food Bill to try to cope with the country's epidemic of food poisoning. Does she not realise that it is no good getting that part of the chain right if, when the food goes into people's kitchens, it is washed with polluted water?
I hope that the Government will have the sense to accept the Lords amendments or, better still, decide that for the sake of the country and the Conservative party they should abandon the Bill altogether.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) suggest that the Government were complacent in some way. It seems to me that the Bill shows precisely how seriously the Government take the water standards—indeed it introduces the most major programme this century to improve water standards. I still have not heard the answers to the horrible questions about the horrible record of the Labour Government. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—who is not very good at answering questions, as we discovered in Committee, although he is pleasant enough—will do his best to answer them later.
When we consider Lords amendments Nos. 62 to 64, we must distinguish between willing the end and willing the means. I fear that among those who have proposed 1993 as the date there might be a category of people who wish simply to advocate a futile gesture and the idea that we should simply include 1993 in the Bill and that, Parliament having spoken, it will somehow happen. That is not worth taking seriously.
Another category of people may want 1993 to be included in the Bill as a flabby obligation. Contrary to what we have heard from Opposition Members, such a date will cause legal difficulties. We have no right under EEC rules to introduce that date. What will be the effect of doing so? An EEC directive already exists on this matter. What will happen if we try to put our own EEC directive date into our legislation? Can we approve or gain EEC approval for parts of the water industry which comply with the 1980 directive if we include 1993? Those are questions which Opposition Members should consider seriously instead of being devoted to creating work for lawyers like me.
I fear that there is a third category of people who want to include that date in the Bill. If they get their way, including such a date would be a recipe for short cuts by the water industry. That would be very serious. It is wrong even to suggest including that date in the Bill if we do not will the means as well as the ends.
My colleagues have referred to the practicalities of this provision. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning will not be surprised to learn that I am not prepared to support any measure which suggests that we can short-cut our planning procedures, soggy as they are. The House should not support such provisions. The projects required to implement the directive must be properly designed. That is an important step which has been taken in many parts of the water industry, but it remains to be taken in other areas.
We are told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that new technology in respect of nitrates and pesticides must be proven. It is no use laughing those matters off because the use of chemicals in water is highly dangerous and delicate. For example, I have been promoting efforts in my constituency to deal with scivalium posticatum—as Mr. Speaker will know, that is the Blandford fly, which has been causing serious problems in the rivers of my constituency. The answer to that problem apparently lies in the use of a chemical called bacillus thuringiensis, which may have serious implications. It must be tested, and that takes a great deal of time. Similarly, the problems with nitrates and pesticides, which we should have discussed at greater length in this debate, must be considered seriously. A deadline of 1993 might be acceptable if we could be absolutely certain that compliance could be achieved and all the practicalities dealt with. Otherwise, the present position is much more in favour of high standards and ensuring that the practicalities are observed.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) said that we should not let the Government off the hook. The Government are and will remain on the hook because of the existence of the directive. It could be argued that introducing the 1993 deadline would let the Government off the hook. I accept the present obligations, and I accept that, like every other EEC country, we are late in doing what should be done. It is up to the House to ensure that the Government do their job in keeping the momentum going. That is a far better way to proceed than trying to introduce an artificial date and ignoring the real practicalities involved in achieving the high standards that we all want.

Mrs. Mahon: I am disgusted at the way in which the Government have consistently guillotined any debate on the Bill. If we had had a chance to debate it properly, we might have considered clause 60, which refers to private water supplies and is of particular interest to me. With the aid of a European Commission study contract, Calderdale environmental health department, which is in my local authority area, investigated the quality of water provided by private supplies in the district. It appears that 5,164 properties in Calderdale were using private supplies at the time of the study. That is 2·7 per cent. of the population. For obvious reasons, the Government were not very pleased with us for doing that study.
The environmental health department in Calderdale found that many problems relating to the quality of water in private supplies were caused through a lack of maintenance, investment and knowledge. The parameters that were considered of relevance to the water quality study in Calderdale were the main ones that are applied everywhere. They are copper, lead, and microbiological


parameters—total coliforms and faecal coliforms. The sampling programme was organised to ensure that at least one sample was obtained from each private supply. It was found that 91 per cent. of samples failed to comply with the directive. They even found a dead cow in one supply.
It is obvious that the quality of water from those supplies was well below the south-east standard. Our public water supply problems, particularly that of aluminium, are not nearly as bad as those of private supplies. The most effective method of achieving compliance with the directive would be to take private supplies into the public sector. Of course, with this Bill, it will not he possible to do that.
I should like the Minister to spend a couple of minutes explaining what will happen to private supplies. Who will pay for them? What will he do? Clause 60 tells us a little about his intentions for private supplies but, because the matter has not been debated in great detail, we are not sure what will happen. What programme will the Government bring forward to ensure that those 5,164 properties in Calderdale receive water that complies with EEC regulations?

Mr. Leigh: I will keep my remarks brief as other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. From a practical point of view, the more I listen to the debate the more I am convinced about the lack of wisdom in enshrining Community directives in our legislation. We have heard about the riser Po— [Interruption.]I ask the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) to allow me to continue my remarks.
They say that Italians do not mind signing Community directives because they have no intention of carrying them out. They say that the Germans like to sign up because they have already done it. They say that Mediterranean countries do not mind signing them because they want us to pay for them. We are the only people with the problem. We will comply with and pay for Community directives. It was a Labour Government who spent five years getting the thing ready, and the Community directive sums up so much of what is wrong with the Community. There are great intentions hut, as we have heard, not one country has succeeded in carrying out that directive nor, I suspect, will they. It is one thing to sign a directive for the sake of guidance, which is what we have done, but to enshrine it in legislation is something different.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leigh: No, because I shall draw my remarks to a rapid conclusion so that other hon. Members can contribute.
The debate has been going on for an hour and a half. Is it not extraordinary that, with the exception of my right hon. Friend who spoke first, we have heard nothing from Opposition Members about clauses 20, 52 and 60? That is part of the black propaganda that the Labour party is trying to put out about the Bill. It is ignoring the fact that the Bill will achieve environmental safeguards that we have never had. We have never had anything akin to clause 52. We have never laid down in legislation that we will insist on wholesome water. We have never had legislation such as is contained in clauses 60 and 65 in which we insist on quality standards, or clause 20, where we insist on enforcement. Undertakers will have to go to the Secretary of State and say how they intend to comply with the EEC

directive. All those matters are contained in the Bill. Lord Hesketh made it clear in the other place that we intend to hold water undertakers to account.
So much of what we have heard does not relate to what is contained in the [Interruption.] Of course, it is good politics. The Labour party is trying to convince the British people that we will privatise the water authorities so that profit will be put before people—[Interruption.] They are all cheering. Opposition Members are rising to the fly cast over the Benches, as happened during 180 hours in Committee. As they try to mislead the British people into believing this nonsense, they are ignoring what is in the Bill. For the first time we are setting up a national environmental protection agency and enforcement procedures. We are taking practical and sensible steps to comply with the EEC directive. That is what we intend to do, and why we should resist this Lords amendment.

Mr. Morley: I have heard nothing in the debate to convince me that the Government cannot reach those standards by the date set down in the EEC directive. It is insulting to the Members in the other place to suggest that they have not taken into account the arguments and the practicalities of achieving those standards. I do not doubt that, because of the gross underinvestment in the water industry in the past 10 years under the Government, it will be difficult to achieve those standards. Under the last Labour Government, on average more money was invested in the industry than in the past 10 years. Conservative Members should hang their heads in shame at being party to such figures. It is a disgrace. Why is it that in the past 10 years the actual increase in water prices has been higher than the rate of inflation? Where has that profit gone? It does not seem to have been invested in the water industry, where it was needed. It seems to have gone to the Government as a form of taxation.
It may be that to achieve the required water quality standards by 1993 enormous resources will have to be switched to the task. For example, there may have to he zero profits for those years while resources are directed towards ensuring that our drinking water quality standards meet the directive, but that is not possible in a privatised industry. That is why we have been arguing that those standards will not be achieved by privatisation, because profits will always be put first. That is the main criterion.
I have not heard anyone, apart from the Government and the Water Authorities Association, say that those standards cannot be met. Of course, all the chairmen of those authorities have been appointed by the Government and they stand to do very nicely out of privatisation, as chairmen of other former public industries and public service sectors have done. I do not believe that the association's letter to every Member of Parliament has any credibility because its members have a completely vested interest. It is trying to defend the political direction of those who put the chairmen where they are today and should be disregarded.
The important issue is that my constituents should be assured that problems such as high nitrate levels in the water supply will be tackled by the Government. We know that for any progress to be made in tackling nitrate levels, the Government have to be dragged along, kicking and screaming, by the EEC. That had to happen before they were prepared to do anything at all. I want to see action in tackling water supply standards and eradicating pesticides


in our water supply. That is why we need a target date. A directive was agreed in 1980, but the Government know that if they try to meet the required standards they will not attract investors to buy the water authorities. They are placing their ideology of selling off the water authorities into the private sector before quality standards and the safety of our people.

Mr. Raffan: I am glad that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has returned to the Chamber. I wanted to say to her face that her opening speech in this debate was the most disreputable that I have ever heard throughout our consideration of the Bill, whether in Committee or in the Chamber. She said, as a statement of fact, that the Government do not care at all about the quality of drinking water. She contended that the Government care only about selling off the water authorities.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I stand by that.

Mr. Raffan: Opposition Members dance to the bait that is thrown to them. The hon. Lady presented a complete distortion of the truth, and she knows it.
Like the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I was a member of the Committee which considered the Bill. I was asked at one stage to comment on a radio interview that she had given. She did not know that that would happen. The interview that she gave bore no relation to anything set out in the Bill. She has distorted the truth again this evening in impugning the Government's motives. The Government have incorporated the drinking water directive in legislation for the first time and made it a criminal offence to supply drinking water that is unfit for human consumption. Under the Government, the water authorities are embarking on a massive capital spending programme of £1 billion to improve water infrastructure and thus water quality.
This evening we saw the hon. Lady draw from her handbag the scruffy piece of paper that she brought out every so often in Committee. She prefers to give average spending figures for obvious reasons. The fact is that the Labour Government cut capital spending on water infrastructure by 30 per cent. in the last three years they were in power. The hon. Lady cannot get away from that.

Mrs. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raffan: I will give way in a moment. I have not finished yet.
However many times the hon. Lady produces that scruffy piece of paper from her handbag, she cannot get away from the fact that the Labour Government cut capital spending in the last three years they were in office.

Mrs. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Raffan: I have not finished yet. I ask the hon. Lady to restrain herself. She had a big bite of the cake earlier. She must give others a chance to contribute to the debate. Some of us want to talk about facts rather than fiction.
The Government are presiding over a massive capital spending programme. In an extremely eloquent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) described the process that we are undertaking as moving the water industry from the public sector, where it has been loosely constrained and loosely regulated, into the private

sector, where it will be subject to much tighter regulation and monitoring than ever before. That is a fact. Indeed, some Opposition Members have today acknowledged that with the setting up of the National Rivers Authority there will be much tighter control and regulation producing significant environmental advances.

Mrs. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman help the House by defining what he regards as a "massive capital programme"? Is he aware that the Government's investment programme from 1979 to 1986 has been lower —for the most part, much lower—than even the worst years under the Labour Government? It took seven years to get back to the Labour Government's worst year. That says a great deal about the problems created by the lack of investment under this Government.

Mr. Raffan: That is a distortion. The more the hon. Lady is challenged, the more she distorts.
I am glad that Welsh Members are present as they can confirm that there has been almost a doubling of capital expenditure by the Welsh water authority—

Mr. Win Griffiths: It was needed.

Mr. Raffan: It was desperately needed because of the years of neglect under the Labour Government. The Welsh water authority has the longest—

Mr. Griffiths: rose—

Mr Raffan: I am not giving way. I am finishing a sentence. I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because he, too, has already had a bite of the cake. He should remain quiet and let me make my point. I am well aware that what I am saying is unpalatable to the Opposition. It is fit for human consumption, but I am not sure that it is fit for the Opposition consumption. After all, they do not like facts—they have been dealing in fiction all night. The fact is that the Government have massively increased public spending by 50 per cent. since they came to power and have a programme stretching years ahead—

Mr. Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Raffan: I have made it clear that I will not give way again—[Interruption.] I was generous in giving way earlier —[HON. MEMBERS:"Give way."] All right, I will give way, but I do not want to take up too much time.

Mr Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman claims to have close knowledge of the Welsh water authority. If so, he must know that one of the major arguments put forward by its chairman for accepting privatisation is that it will release him from the constraints of capital spending imposed by the Government—a view that he has expressed many times.

Mr. Raffan: It is not that at all. The hon. Gentleman is wrong again. I have talked often to Mr. John Elfed Jones, the chairman of the Welsh water authority, who wants to be released from the possible nightmare—although it is a fantasy—of a future Labour Government. He does not want a repeat of what happened in the last three years the Labour party was in power. Because the Labour Government so feared electoral unpopularity, they took the easy way out and cut capital rather than current spending when they had to crawl, humiliated, to the


International Monetary Fund in 1976. The chairman of the Welsh Water Authority knows the position. He knows that he will be able to borrow more money, more cheaply on the money market as a result of the Bill and thus accelerate the authority's capital programme.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: What about the Conservatives' Euro-seats?

Mr. Raffan: The hon. Lady brings in Euro-seats as a distraction. I do not remember the Labour candidate in north Wales mentioning the Bill. Indeed, he did not mention much to do with Europe at all. I doubt whether he even knew that the European drinking water directive existed.
As usual, I wish to be constructive, and in the few minutes remaining to me I shall refer to some of the points to which the hon. Lady failed to respond in my right hon. Friend's opening speech My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an important point about the practical problems of specific dates due to the varying programmes for capital works. We cannot expect all of them to be completed or finalised at the same time. My right hon. Friend mentioned the possible disruption of water supplies which would occur if there were an acceleration of the programmes. The hon. Lady did not respond to that point.
Another important point is what has been referred to as dynamic changes. That refers to the long-term leaking of nitrates, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), the introduction of new herbicides and pesticides and the problems that they will create. Water supplies which currently comply with the directive might not comply in future due to the long-term leaking of nitrates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey pointed out that no EEC country complies with the directive—all are guilty of infringements except Portugal, which has had an extension of the time in which it has to comply. Most water suppliers in this country comply with the health-related aspects of the directive. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said, of the 66 requirements in the directive most are related to appearance and turbidity and are not health-related. We are breaching the directive mainly on appearance and turbidity. The drinking water of the 11 million people touted around by the Opposition —the lingering remnants of the SLD members and the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths)—is not unsafe, but merely not up to standard terms of appearance and turbidity. Yet the Opposition toss around a figure of 11 million people's health being adversely affected by their drinking water. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I did not say that.

Mr. Raffan: That was the clear inferencee to be drawn from Opposition speeches. I listened very carefully, as I always do, to the hon. Members for Bridgend and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey).

Mr. Griffiths: Then the hon. Gentleman got it wrong again.

Mr. Raffan: From the point of view of public health, the directives' key sections concern bacteria and toxic substances. Water in England and Wales has always enjoyed very high standards of bacteriological purity.

There remain only three very small water supplies which are adversely affected in that regard, and they are being quickly dealt with.
The Government propose to incorporate in their regulations under the Bill tighter standards governing lead than exist in the directive and are requiring water authorities to do even more by introducing additives in water treatment to reduce lead content. Nitrate pollution is probably the trickiest area, and the main problem is of long-term leakage of nitrate into the water supply as a result of the use of fertilisers and intensive farming. I do not understand why Labour Members go on about static dates for compliance with the Community directive when maintaining quality is a continuing process which will not end in 1993 or 1995. There may be areas where water supplies are currently free of nitrates but may be adversely affected in the future. Much research is being undertaken by water authorities in respect of denitrification processes, some of which are very complicated. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) made an important point about the care that must be taken when adding chemicals to the water supply. This is particularly true when dealing with nitrates. The Government's proposals for the creation of water protection zones and nitrate-sensitive areas must be considered further. The Government are making considerable progress, but solutions cannot be conjured up overnight.
Aluminium pollution is constantly mentioned by Opposition Members, although it is pure scaremongering. They fail to point out that a cup of tea contains 20 to 200 times as much aluminium as the water used to make it.
Throughout the progress of the Bill, and particularly today, the Opposition have distorted the truth. The Government, through the effective provisions of the Bill—by the establishment of the National Rivers Authority, and by incorporating the Community directive into the legislation—are making clear their determination to improve the quality of our water supplies. That is something that a Labour Government never did, even when they had the chance to do so.

Mr. Michael: It is always difficult to deal with the manifest distortions introduced by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), and as water was such a major issue in the recent European Parliament election in north Wales I am surprised that his remarks should be so far-reaching. I shall first correct the hon. Gentleman's remarks concerning Welsh Water. We know only of an apologetic plea by Welsh Water that it would be free from the constraints of the Conservative Government in terms of investment by the private sector, but Welsh Water's main objective was clearly set out in a letter to all its employees from its chairman, Mr. John Elfed Jones. It stated:
You should know that it is the unanimous opinion of the Board that the interests of both consumers and the employees of Welsh Water are best served by NOT proceeding with privatisation of the Welsh Water Authority.
His letter concluded:
I very much hope that the Government will heed the views of the Board of Welsh Water and that privatisation will not take place.

Mr. Raffan: When was it dated?

Mr. Michael: Mr. Jones was later somewhat pressurised by Ministers, but that letter expressed the unanimous view


of the board of Welsh Water—[Interruption.]—and shouting by Conservative Members will not change the truth of that.
The debate has inevitably been narrow in its scope, btit the concerns are basic and of major importance. As has happened with monotonous consistency during the passage of this outrageous Bill, the Government failed to make their case, appeared appallingly complacent, and were made to look ridiculous in discussing the subject of water quality. To describe the Bill as a consumer measure is as ludicrous as calling Count Dracula a dependable agent of public health. To claim that the Bill has been brought in specially to improve water quality is even dafter. Labour Members are seeking to ensure decent standards of water quality and to present practical protection measures. As with so many other aspects of the Bill, the Secretary of State can defend the Government's position only by weaving a web of byzantine complexity, cross-referring clauses and asking us to put our trust in the intentions of Ministers.
Conservative Back-Bench Members have given credit to the Labour Government's work over five years, but have allowed little for the 10 years of neglect that followed and the failure to implement the standards to which we have referred. Welsh Water came out against privatisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has given the facts about the Government's failure until 1986 to return to even the lowest level of investment made by the Labour Government. Clauses 52 and 20, cited in defence of the Government's measure, mean little without objective and public scrutiny. All the protections in the Bill are flawed without that.
On the evidence of the past 10 years, to trust Ministers would be foolhardy. Lords amendment No. 49 is welcome because it tightens the original wording, which would have imposed little or no obligation on the Secretary of State or the director general to take any serious action to enforce standards. We want to ensure proper monitoring of water quality, and it is sad to see that it is now the EC to which we must turn for any real safeguards and any serious intention to protect the public.
I have a feeling that a reading of Conservative Members' contributions to the debate will not reassure Commissioner Ripa di Meana about the Government's intentions. That is why our amendment to Lords amendment No. 49 is so important. Under our amendment, technical assessors would have an independent role and the EC could monitor properly. Technical reports about contraventions would have to be sent to the EC within two weeks of their coming to knowledge; problems would be brought into the open instead of being buried in bureaucracy or covered up by a Conservative Minister.
The ministerial reply that I received in response to questions to the Secretary of State for Wales on current derogation applications showed an appalling lack of knowledge of or interest in the matter. Our basic point is that if there is to be a process of letting companies off in return for investment schemes, it should be open to scrutiny and subject to objective tests. That is particularly important in view of other amendments that the Secretary of State wants to make today. If he has his way, he will delete the word "wholesome".
The fact that the Secretary of State does not want companies to be obliged to supply people with wholesome water brings home just how much we need European Commission protection. He appears not to care what quality of water comes through the tap, but we and the British public care, and we are trying to build in some protections. Incidentally, if the Secretary of State thinks it impractical to emphasise the word "wholesome", he should note that precisely that word is used in the famous water advertisements to describe quality and to define what people expect, so the water authorities must know what it means. In its version, Welsh Water's claim is
Water we send your way is regularly tested to ensure it is wholesome.
According to the Secretary of State, that is meaningless. I would prefer to listen to Welsh Water in this context. To delete the word "wholesome" will hardly reassure independent observers who share our justifiable fears about what the Government are up to.
Personally, I am delighted at the success of the water authorities' advertising campaign, although the result has not been quite what the Government or the water authorities intended. Millions of pounds have been spent on the campaign to soften up the British public for the great water sell-off, but the result is that the public are confirmed in their belief that water is of value, and water quality so important that the industry should not be sold off. Their reasons are many, but the simple question of what comes out of the tap takes pride of place—followed by environmental concerns and worry over prices, river quality, land use and so forth.
Among the advertisements published by Welsh Water, my personal favourite is the one that shows a rustic well miles from anyone's home and tells us that we have come a long way since Victorian times. Too right we have, especially in terms of water quality. In Victorian times the industry was in private hands, and water quality was so bad that disease was rife in our towns and cities. Today 79 per cent. of the population firmly oppose the Secretary of State and the water sell-off. My bet is that nearly 100 per cent. of the population firmly oppose the Government's bid to return to Victorian values, that nearly 100 per cent. of the population agree with our plea for safeguards and objective, open monitoring and that nearly 100 per cent. of the population support what we are trying to do in the amendments.
The City also rejects the Government's plans. Water quality is one of the factors that is putting off financiers. The City believes that privatisation should be put off until after water has been brought up to the EC standard, yet the Government are trying to put off the day of reckoning. They do not want to write in the 1993 deadline—itself a compromise—by which date Britain should reach European drinking water standards. The Secretary of State admits that those standards should have been met by 1985. That is why the City, like the public, are suspicious of the Secretary of State's motives in rejecting the Lords amendment.
9.45 pm
How can Ministers press on and ignore water quality problems and the helpful amendments that have been tabled at a time when the Director of Public Prosecutions is in the latter stages of considering criminal charges following the Camelford incident, when even public bodies have been shown to have misled the public and covered up


the facts—something that is bound to be an even greater danger when water is in private hands, since company regulations require shareholders' interests and profits to take priority—and when water authorities are currently and variously being challenged over EC levels of aluminium, lead, iron and manganese? Furthermore, local authority power will be diminished by the Bill. The British Government arc defying the European Community over the timetable for improving water standards and may be taken to court by it. Microbiologists and others with direct experience of the water industry are warning the British people and the Secretary of State of the need for the independent monitoring of drinking water quality. The Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment are seen to be headed by Ministers who offer fine words but who lack the commitment to guarantee a supply of drinking water that is of a high and dependable quality.
The Bill is fatally flawed. Information that is technically in the public domain is now inaccessible to public or professional scrutiny and it will be even less accessible to consumers in the future. The Government have not told us —perhaps the Secretary of State will do so now—whether we are to have a locally based system of technical assessors and whether such a service will be provided with guaranteed resources and allowed to be independent. According to the Bill, water quality is not in the hands of the director general. His role is an economic one. Water quality is in the hands of the Secretary of State. Given his complacency earlier tonight, that will not reassure the public.
The Ministers involved want us to trust them. We do not, nor do the public at large. The Bill has been described by a senior Welsh Tory Back-Bench Member as deservedly unpopular. I hope that he and other Conservative Members who realise that the Government have got it wrong will join us in the Lobby and give some protection to the public on the key issue of water quality.

Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is fatally flawed? If he looks at clause 52 he will find that it states specifically that there will he a duty to supply wholesome water. That duty remains under any amendments on the Amendment Paper. I agree that he mentioned the Opposition amendment, but again his approach to it was fatally flawed. The need for an independent assessor is recognised elsewhere in the Bill, but the hon. Gentleman seems not to have noticed it. There will, therefore, be an independent assessor. If the Commission wants any information from the Government, it will write and ask for it. There is no need, therefore, for the amendment. The hon. Gentleman's understanding of what is provided for in the Bill is clearly inadequate.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) questioned whether the Government's amendments to clause 20 had convinced and satisfied the Commission. She is quite wrong about that.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Ridley: No. I have very little time and I must get on.
I can do no better than quote the Select Committee on the cuts that the Labour Government made in water investment.

There are a number of reasons why water authority effluence falls short of the present consent standards. The most immediate reason is because from the mid-1970s until the early 1980s there was a steady drop in investment by the water authority in sewerage and sewage disposal.
The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and others signed the Select Committee report.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury was quite wrong when she said that the Labour Government's worst year of investment was better than the Tory average. Labour's worst year of investment was worse than the worst year of Tory investment, so the hon. Lady was absolutely wrong. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) fails to understand that the underinvestment by the Labour Government is the problem that we all have to face.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) suggested that the Bill had the year 1995 as the date for total compliance by the industry with the water directive. The Bill includes no date by which total compliance is to be achieved. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) asked me to confirm that I have the duty to enforce compliance, even for temporary waivers under clause 50. That is indeed the case. I have that duty and I shall certainly exercise it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) was absolutely right when he said that it would probably be illegal to put the date 1993 into the Bill because we had to comply by 1985. The House could find itself brought before the European Court of Justice, of which the Opposition are so inordinately fond. because they had succeeded in getting the amendment into the Bill. They are advocating that the House should legislate in total contradiction with European law.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Ridley: No, I shall not give way.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffths) said that it was as if we had suddenly discovered a new directive. He is right. It is a new directive. The directive that the Labour party and the Government negotiated and that was brought to a conclusion in 1980 was based on annual average compliance. That is what every nation in Europe thought. That is what the Labour party and the Conservative party thought it said. In 1987 the Commission gave it as its opinion, ex cathedra, that it was based on 100 per cent. compliance. That is what changed that game. In 1987 we were just about complying until the goal posts were moved. That is why it was a totally new game. The hon. Member for Bridgend does not seem to realise that.
Finally, we come to the question whether it is correct that the standards should be applied to all the parameters in the directive. I make no secret of the fact that I hope that there will be some relaxation because some of the standards in the directive are ridiculous, extravagant and unnecessary. I believe that it is absurd to put expensive requirements on us in relation to the colour and taste of water. There is no health risk. Peaty water in the north of England is not something to be ashamed of. It is absolutely absurd to insist on those standards. The standard for nitrate is higher than it need be for purely health reasons. I hope that we can persuade the Commission to relax the standards. Of course we cannot do that unilaterally. We shall abide by the standards, but it would be strange if the


Opposition did not realise that there has to be some considered judgment as to whether they are the right standards.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has left the Chamber, so I need not reply to her, but clauses 57 to 59 meet her point about private water supplies, and of course the directive will apply to them.
The Labour party fails to understand that there are about 60 parameters in the directive. All drinking water in this country is wholesome and fit to drink, but of the parameters cited in the directive as being dangerous to health, we shall be in compliance with that for lead within the next few months. It will probably take about two years to comply with microbiological factors, and about two or three years to comply with the directive on nitrates. However, it might take a little longer in a few areas where denitrification plants will be necessary. We should have all the aluminium cleaned up at treatment works in two or three years, but natural aluminium is not mentioned in the directive. All the measures that matter will be completed well before 1993. Colour, iron and manganese traces in the water may take much longer because the entire pipe network will have to be replaced. If the hon. Member for Dewsbury thinks that we can do that by 1993, she should think again.
I agree with my hon. Friends about the scandalous way in which the Labour party has sought to knock the health standards of this country for short-term, cheap political advantage, and I invite the House to reject amendment (a).

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 48 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 49, in page 21, leave out lines 45 to 47.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), at end add
'and insert "except that the Secretary of State or Director as the case may be shall have regard in any case to which paragraph (b) of this subsection applies to any report submitted to the Director by a technical assessor appointed under section 60 below in respect of the contraventions concerned, and the Director shall within two weeks of receiving any such report submit a copy of it to the European Commission".'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 308.

Division No. 274]
[9.56 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boateng, Paul


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Boyes, Roland


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Ashton, Joe
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buckley, George J.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Caborn, Richard


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Jim


Battle, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Beckett, Margaret
Canavan, Dennis


Beith, A. J.
Cartwright, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clay, Bob


Bidwell, Sydney
Clelland, David


Blunkett, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann





Cohen, Harry
Madden, Max


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Marek, Dr John


Cousins, Jim
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cox, Tom
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Crowther, Stan
Martlew, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Maxton, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Meacher, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Meale, Alan


Darling, Alistair
Michael, Alun


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dewar, Donald
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dixon, Don
Morgan, Rhodri


Dobson, Frank
Morley, Elliott


Doran, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mowlam, Marjorie


Eastham, Ken
Mudd, David


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mullin, Chris


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Murphy, Paul


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Nellist, Dave


Fisher, Mark
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flannery, Martin
O'Brien, William


Flynn, Paul
O'Neill, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foster, Derek
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Foulkes, George
Pendry, Tom


Fraser, John
Pike, Peter L.


Fyfe, Maria
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Galloway, George
Prescott, John


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Radice, Giles


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Randall, Stuart


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Gordon, Mildred
Reid, Dr John


Gould, Bryan
Richardson, Jo


Graham, Thomas
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Robertson, George


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rogers, Allan


Grocott, Bruce
Rooker, Jeff


Harman, Ms Harriet
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Henderson, Doug
Rowlands, Ted


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ruddock, Joan


Hood, Jimmy
Sedgemore, Brian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sheerman, Barry


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howells, Geraint
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Skinner, Dennis


Hoyle, Doug
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; Fbury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Ingram, Adam
Snape, Peter


Janner, Greville
Soley, Clive


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Steinberg, Gerry


Kennedy, Charles
Stott, Roger


Kirkwood, Archy
Strang, Gavin


Leadbitter, Ted
Straw, Jack


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Livingstone, Ken
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Livsey, Richard
Turner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Vaz, Keith


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wall, Pat


McAllion, John
Wallace, James


McAvoy, Thomas
Walley, Joan


McCartney, Ian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McFall, John
Wigley, Dafydd


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McKelvey, William
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McLeish, Henry
Wilson, Brian


Maclennan, Robert
Winnick, David


McWilliam, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey






Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Amos, Alan
Eggar, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evennett, David


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fallon, Michael


Ashby, David
Favell, Tony


Aspinwall, Jack
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkins, Robert
Fishburn, John Dudley


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Eric


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bellingham, Henry
Franks, Cecil


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
French, Douglas


Benyon, W.
Fry, Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gardiner, George


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gill, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Body, Sir Richard
Goodlad, Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Peter
Gow, Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Ground, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Grylls, Michael


Bright, Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hague, William


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hannam, John


Buck, Sir Antony
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Budgen, Nicholas
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Christopher


Butcher, John
Hayes, Jerry


Butler, Chris
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Butterfill, John
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heddle, John


Carrington, Matthew
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Cash, William
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hind, Kenneth


Chope, Christopher
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Churchill, Mr
Holt, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howard, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cran, James
Irvine, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jack, Michael


Curry, David
Jackson, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Janman, Tim


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dicks, Terry
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert





Kilfedder, James
Redwood, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Renton, Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rhodes James, Robert


Knapman, Roger
Riddick, Graham


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knowles, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knox, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lang, Ian
Rost, Peter


Latham, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Lawrence, Ivan
Ryder, Richard


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shersby, Michael


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Speller, Tony


Maclean, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin


Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malins, Humfrey
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Maples, John
Stevens, Lewis


Marland, Paul
Stokes, Sir John


Marlow, Tony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sumberg, David


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Summerson, Hugo


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mellor, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miller, Sir Hal
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David
Thorne, Neil


Moate, Roger
Thornton, Malcolm


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trippier, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Trotter, Neville


Neale, Gerrard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Norris, Steve
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Walters, Sir Dennis


Oppenheim, Phillip
Ward, John


Page, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Paice, James
Warren, Kenneth


Patnick, Irvine
Watts, John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wells, Bowen


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wheeler, John


Pawsey, James
Whitney, Ray


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wiggin, Jerry


Portillo, Michael
Wilshire, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Price, Sir David
Wolfson, Mark


Raffan, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Rathbone, Tim
Yeo, Tim






Young, Sir George (Acton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and



Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment No. 49 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 62 and 63 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 64, in page 40, line 16, at end insert
(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of the duty conferred by subsection (2) above, regulations under that subsection shall include in any standard of performance a requirement for an undertaker to achieve the levels of drinking water quality specified in EEC Directive 80/778 by a date not later than the date specified by the Secretary of State under subsection (2B) below in respect of each undertaker.
(2B) The date or dates to be specified by the Secretary of State by order under this subsection shall be that or those which either—

(a) Not later than 31st December 1989, have been agreed by the Secretary of State and the European Commission; or
(b) Where no such agreement has been reached by the date referred to in paragraph (a) above, 1st September 1993.

(2C) Where, before the date specified in an order under subsection (2B) above, any further terms of a Directive by the European Commission relating to drinking water quality are introduced, the Secretary of State shall, in consultation with the Commission, by regulations establish the shortest timetable for compliance by each water and sewerage undertaker as he considers to be reasonably practicable."— [Mr. Alan Howarth]

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 199.

Division No. 275]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Alexander, Richard
Brazier, Julian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bright, Graham


Amess, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Amos, Alan
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arbuthnot, James
Browne, John (Winchester)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Buck, Sir Antony


Ashby, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Burns, Simon


Atkins, Robert
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Butcher, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butler, Chris


Baldry, Tony
Butterfill, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bellingham, Henry
Carrington, Matthew


Bendall, Vivian
Carttiss, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Benyon, W.
Chapman, Sydney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chope, Christopher


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Churchill, Mr


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Body, Sir Richard
Colvin, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Conway, Derek


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bottomley, Peter
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Couchman, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cran, James


Bowis, John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Curry, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Davies, Q. (Staml'd &amp; Spald'g)





Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knowles, Michael


Dover, Den
Knox, David


Dunn, Bob
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Lang, Ian


Eggar, Tim
Latham, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lawrence, Ivan


Evennett, David
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forman, Nigel
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Franks, Cecil
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
McCrindle, Robert


French, Douglas
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fry, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gardiner, George
Maclean, David


Gill, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Madel, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Malins, Humfrey


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mans, Keith


Gorst, John
Maples, John


Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gregory, Conal
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mates, Michael


Grist, Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Ground, Patrick
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Mellor, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Miller, Sir Hal


Hague, William
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miscampbell, Norman


Han ley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, John
Mitchell, Sir David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Monro, Sir Hector


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hawkins, Christopher
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hayward, Robert
Moss, Malcolm


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Heddle, John
Nelson, Anthony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hind, Kenneth
Norris, Steve


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Holt, Richard
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hordern, Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Howard, Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irvine, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert
Price, Sir David


Janman, Tim
Raffan, Keith


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rathbone, Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, John


Kellett-Rowman, Dame Elaine
Renton, Tim


Key, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert






Riddick, Graham
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thorne, Neil


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thornton, Malcolm


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thurnham, Peter


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rost, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rowe, Andrew
Tracey, Richard


Ryder, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trippier, David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Trotter, Neville


Sayeed, Jonathan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shersby, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waller, Gary


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Speller, Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Warren, Kenneth


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watts, John


Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wheeler, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Stevens, Lewis
Wilshire, David


Stokes, Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Summerson, Hugo
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Tony Durant.


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Allen, Graham
Clay, Bob


Anderson, Donald
Clelland, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Armstrong, Hilary
Cohen, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Cox, Tom


Battle, John
Crowther, Stan


Beckett, Margaret
Cryer, Bob


Beith, A. J.
Cunningham, Dr John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dalyell, Tarn


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Darling, Alistair


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blunkett, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Boateng, Paul
Dewar, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Dixon, Don


Bradley, Keith
Dobson, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Doran, Frank


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Eastham, Ken


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Buckley, George J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Caborn, Richard
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Callaghan, Jim
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flannery, Martin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Flynn, Paul


Canavan, Dennis
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Cartwright, John
Foster, Derek





Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fraser, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fyfe, Maria
Mowlam, Marjorie


Galloway, George
Mudd, David


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Mullin, Chris


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Murphy, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Nellist, Dave


Golding, Mrs Llin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gordon, Mildred
O'Brien, William


Gould, Bryan
O'Neill, Martin


Graham, Thomas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pike, Peter L.


Grocott, Bruce
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Prescott, John


Henderson, Doug
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Radice, Giles


Hood, Jimmy
Randall, Stuart


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Reid, Dr John


Howells, Geraint
Richardson, Jo


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hoyle, Doug
Robertson, George


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ruddock, Joan


Ingram, Adam
Sedgemore, Brian


Janner, Greville
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kilfedder, James
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Snape, Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Soley, Clive


Livsey, Richard
Spearing, Nigel


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steinberg, Gerry


McAllion, John
Stott, Roger


McAvoy, Thomas
Strang, Gavin


McCartney, Ian
Straw, Jack


Macdonald, Calum A.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McFall, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Turner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Vaz, Keith


McLeish, Henry
Wall, Pat


Maclennan, Robert
Wallace, James


McWilliam, John
Walley, Joan


Madden, Max
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marion, Mrs Alice
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Marek, Dr John
Wigley, Dafydd


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Martlew, Eric
Wilson, Brian


Maxton, John
Winnick, David


Meale, Alan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Worthington, Tony


Michael, Alun
Wray, Jimmy


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)



Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Tellers for the Noes:


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.


Morley, Elliott

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment accordingly disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 50 to 54 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 56 to 61 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 65 to 116 agreed to.

Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

To be further considered tomorrow.

Hospitals (Walsall)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Mr. David Winnick: The background to this Adjournment debate is the decision of the Walsall health authority on 27 April this year to submit an expression of interest—that is how recommendations are worded—in what is called self-governing status for two hospitals in my borough: the main hospital, the Manor, and St. Margaret's hospital. Reference was made in the recommendations to a consultation exercise—whatever that means—by the regional health authority, but, at most, that will be of the most limited kind. Who is to be consulted and on what basis? Are medical and non-medical staff of the hospitals concerned to be consulted, or are they to be balloted? How will residents in the borough, the unions and professional associations be consulted?
On 3 May I wrote to the chairman of the Walsall health authority and told him that I remain strongly opposed to the decision. I stated that there was no evidence whatever that any such decision would be in the overall interests of the borough. I added—I hope that the Minister notes this —that there could be no doubt that the large majority of residents are opposed to those hospitals becoming self-governing. I pointed out that if, however, the health authority was determined to press ahead with this matter, it was essential that the residents in the borough were given an opportunity to express their views. I outlined the arrangements that should therefore be made for balloting to take place, with each electoral polling district within each ward being used for residents to express whether they agree with the recommendations of the health authority.
I followed that up with a letter on 18 May to the Secretary of State, enclosing a copy of my letter to the chairman of the health authority and again setting out the arguments for ensuring that ballots are held before there is any opting out, or what the Government describe as self-governing status, for those National Health Service hospitals. I shall return to that in a moment and also to the reply which I received.
The opted-out hospitals will undoubtedly be under immense pressure to specialise in profitable activities and to drop others. It is far less likely that local communities such as mine will be guaranteed a comprehensve package of services. There will also he a financial disincentive for such opted-out hospitals to treat patients who are not covered by a contract from a health authority or a general practitioner under the White Paper proposals described as "Working for Patients"—that is not how I would describe them.
It may be said that that is the typical reaction of the Labour party. People may say, "What do you expect from Labour politicians? 'Hands off the NHS; hands off the existing arrangements'. It is all party propaganda." I make no apologies for the fact that since the Labour Government brought in the National Health Service 41 years ago we have all been completely devoted to the idea. We were devoted to the conception before it was brought in and we have been determined that the National Health Service should survive.
That is not just the opinion of the Labour party, because medical opinion seems to be of the same view. The British Medical Association Council said:

The Council believes that the establishment of self-governing hospitals would fragment the service and destroy its comprehensive nature. Patients would no longer have available to them in their own localities a full range of health care facilities, and this would be a cause of great inconvenience to them and to their relatives.
The BMA, again in evidence to the Select Committee on Social Services, gave this warning:
The considerable experience of such hospitals in the USA shows clearly that there will be pressure to encourage admission of patients that can he treated with financial benefit to the hospital, rather than to admit those patients often the chronic sick whose treatment is likely to lead to little or no financial benefit.
I shall quote, too, the views of the joint consultants committee. I very much doubt whether the BMA is dominated by Labour voting doctors. Likewise I have considerable doubt whether the joint consultants committee has an in-built Labour majority. I hope that the Minister will listen to what the committee said:
These proposals inevitably change the prime aim of the management of these hospitals, from the provision of adequate care to the community as a whole to the financial success of the hospital. The considerable experience of such hospitals in the USA shows clearly that there will be pressure to encourage admission of patients with conditions that can be treated with financial benefit to the hospital rather than to admit those patients—often the chronic sick—whose treatment is likely to lead to little or no such financial benefit.
There does not seem to be much doubt about the medical view of hospitals opting out. The Royal College of Nursing also expressed strong disapproval of any such plans. Locally, Dr. Bradwell Davies, the chairman of the local medical committee in my borough, whose committee represents 180 general practitioners, said that the vast majority of doctors oppose opting out by hospitals. He also made the valid point that they have not been consulted.
Opted-out hospitals will have the right to dispose of assets. The only restriction apparently will be if the Secretary of State believes that it would be against the public interest. The Opposition do not believe that that is much of a guarantee at all.
As there is the possibility that the Minister will consider that opting out is not the right expression to use about this matter, it is interesting to note that on 15 May, when I asked the Minister of State, Department of Health about opting-out hospitals, he did not challenge that description. That is rather like the so-called community charge. Everyone knows that it is a poll tax—even Ministers admit that. The same can be said about hospitals opting out.
I take the view that opting out is a halfway house to privatisation. No doubt the Minister will tell me that opted-out hospitals or hospitals with governing status, however he likes to describe them, will remain with the National Health Service. Perhaps they will, in a way, but opting out is a halfway house to privatisation. We all know how the Government could proceed once hospitals opted out of the existing NHS management structure.
The Minister and I will not agree about the pros and cons of opting out. He is here, understandably, to represent the Government's point of view. The decision was made in Cabinet, and a junior Minister—I mean no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman—is here to echo the Government's line. He is not likely to say, "You have a point of view and I shall press it among my ministerial colleagues." We shall clearly not reach agreement on this matter tonight.
Before there is any opting out or self-governing status, whatever description the Minister wants to apply to the proposals, there should be adequate balloting before the matter is taken any further. It is interesting to note that balloting is necessary before schools can opt out. Before the accommodation of council tenants can be bought by private landlords, balloting is necessary. Before a housing action trust can be set up, balloting is now necessary. As we know, the Government were adamant initially that there would not be any balloting for housing action trusts. The Secretary of State remained adamant, even when the other place passed an amendment that required balloting to take place. At the end of the day, however, balloting was accepted.
I received today the Minister's reply to my letter of 18 May. It is dated 30 June. He states:
RHAs will give the proposals publicity and seek the views of all interested parties particularly the health authority concerned, staff of the hospital, general practitioners, community health councils and the local community.
He adds:
We have decided that it would not be sensible for the RHA to organise ballots of staff or any other group with an interest.
What does that mean? What sort of a consultation exercise will it be? Do not the Government believe in the same form of democracy in which I believe? I believe in balloting. Let the people decide. I am a democrat. If a decision goes against me, that is most unfortunate to say the least, but for all the reasons that I have outlined I must accept the decision, as I have accepted other decisions. I have no doubt that the Minister has done that in political life when decisions have gone against him. That is the nature of our democracy.
Why should there be no balloting in this instance? Is it really not practicable, or is it because the Government know that if balloting occurred there would be an overwhelming majority against the Government's proposals? The Minister knows that that is so, but he will not concede the point. He knows it as well as I do, otherwise the Government would have no hesitation about balloting.
At a public meeting that was held in the town hall in the borough a few weeks ago there was total opposition to any opting out. No one came from the Conservative party or the doctors to say, "I have a point of view that is in its favour." We would have listened because we are democrats. The meeting was well advertised, publicised and attended and no view was expressed in favour of the Government's case. If the Minister consulted the local district health authority, I think that it would concede to him privately that what I am saying is the truth. Who is frightened of democracy? Who is reluctant to put the issues to those who are concerned?
We will not abandon the campaign. In my borough we will continue to insist that those two hospitals remain within the existing NHS management structure. I hope that there will be similar campaigns throughout the country in defence of the NHS hospitals. I said that I thought of the plans as a halfway house to privatisation. The Government have no real commitment to the NHS. We all know that if, electorally, they could have got away with it, even more damage would have been done— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) mutters and mumbles, but I doubt whether he has any commitment to the NHS.
The Minister, understandably, will read his prepared speech, but I hope that he will take on board what I have said about democracy and the views of the local community. The overwhelming majority are against his proposals. We shall certainly continue the campaign in Walsall.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on securing this debate and on presenting his arguments so clearly. It is a pleasure, at this hour of night, to be debating with such a seasoned campaigner, battling as always against common sense and, on this occasion, the tide of history on the reforms of the National Health Service.
During the six months that I have served as a health Minister I have visited many hospitals and spoken to many of those who work in the Health Service. I have seen for myself the great deal of interest in the concept of self-governing hospitals. The Government are convinced that it is an exciting and excellent opportunity for the NHS. I shall be playing my part—not merely reading speeches as the hon. Gentleman implied—in helping to explain to those who work in the NHS and to patients the great value of the Government's proposals.
I am glad to have this opportunity to put on record the considerable achievements of the Walsall district health authority in improving health services for the people of Walsall and the ways in which our White Paper proposals will build on those achievements. The hon. Gentleman did not have time to dwell upon the authority's achievements, nor upon those of the Government during the past 10 years. I hope that he will not mind if I take a few minutes to put those achievements on the record before dealing specifically with his points.
The Government's record since we came to office amply demonstrates our commitment to the National Health Service. We have increased spending by some 40 per cent. in real terms. We are treating more patients each year and we have greatly increased the numbers of doctors and nurses working in the NHS.
Walsall district health authority has shared in all those advances and has significantly improved its position as a district that includes some of the most deprived areas in the west midlands region. In the current financial year the district has received an increase of more than £5·5 million in its revenue budget, bringing the total to just under £53 million. That represents a cash increase this year alone of 11·5 per cent. Part of that increase will help to pay for the running costs of the new £20 million Walsall district general hospital which, as the hon. Member will know, was recently completed. That magnificent new hospital, which will admit its first patients in December, will eventually have 289 acute beds, together with an accident and emergency department, operating theatres, a coronary care unit and X-ray rooms.
That is not the only major development in Walsall. Work is due to start as soon as possible on the new Anchor Meadow community hospital, costing more than £9 million. It should be completed by March 1991. We have recently given approval in principle to a new scheme for psychiatric services in the district. That scheme, costing some £8 million, will he carried out in two phases, the first starting later this year. That is a major capital investment


programme in anyone's terms. The people of Walsall already have a Health Service of which they can be justifiably proud. The completion of those projects will provide further improvements.
Walsall is to be congratulated on its success in reducing hospital in-patient waiting lists, which were down in March 1989 by nearly 17 per cent. by comparison with the previous year. The reduction in the number of people who have waited for longer than a year is even more dramatic, for it has fallen by more than one third. Those significant achievements are reflected by increased activity rates in almost all specialties. That is a tribute to the skills and professionalism not only of management but of all who work in the Health Service in Walsall.
There is more to proper health care than hospitals—and Walsall's efforts, quite properly, do not end with the provision of hospital services. The district has an admirable record of taking positive and imaginative steps to prevent ill health. In January, I announced that for 1989–90 the Government were allocating to regions a total of £7·8 million for measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations. I drew attention to the excellent local rubella publicity campaign being run in Walsall, which continues to be a great success. There have been about 860,000 vaccinations to date, and the district is well on its way to meeting its target. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the health authority is doing a great deal to improve the health care—including hospital facilities—that is available to the people of Walsall.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman's specific points. The White Paper "Working for Patients" outlines a number of initiatives to make the Health Service more responsive to the needs of patients by delegating responsibility for managing hospitals as far as possible to local level, and giving general practitioners and patients more choice. Our basic thinking is that hospitals and other NHS units are best run locally by the doctors, nurses and managers who have first-hand local knowledge. Self-governing hospitals will have the freedom to run their own affairs.
Self-governing hospitals will not opt out but will remain fully part of the National Health Service. The hon. Gentleman believes that that is halfway to privatisation and to breaking up the NHS. He is entitled to his belief, but he is wrong. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government made it absolutely plain that the Health Service will continue to deliver its services free to patients and be financed largely by taxation and by national insurance contributions.
Each self-governing hospital or unit will have its own trust, which will assume responsibility from the district health authority. In that way they will be able to benefit from the freedoms outlined in the White Paper, to respond to patient needs, to improve the quality of care even more effectively, and to develop a greater sense of local commitment and pride. We stress that self-governing hospitals must continue to meet the needs of patients and the community. They will have delegated freedoms in respect of staff numbers, pay, and capital programmes. Staff transferring to a self-governing hospital will carry over their terms and conditions of service, including pension rights.
The Government fully recognise the importance of maintaining local access to a comprehensive range of

health care services. We look to district health authorities to take responsibility for that and for ensuring that contracts are arranged in such a way as to ensure that integration of community and in-patient services is maintained. With the development of self-governing hospitals, and of greater devolution to hospitals that remain under district health authority control, districts will be better able to give attention to those key tasks.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the White Paper's key proposals is that DHAs will have responsibility for the care of all those in their districts and will be purchasers of health care, whereas the hospitals —both self-governing and directly managed—will be the suppliers of health care. The district health authority will be responsible for ensuring that an adequate range of services, including core services, is available in its district.

Mr. Winnick: Obviously the Government have made up their mind to push the White Paper's proposals as much as possible—and it is equally obvious that the consultation exercises and all the rest of it are purely cosmetic. The Minister naturally praises the Government's intentions, but why are the Government so isolated? Leaving aside the objections of the Labour party and the rest, why is medical opinion almost unanimously opposed to the proposals? I read out the views of the BMA, of the JCC, and of the general practitioners in my borough—and I imagine that their view is shared by GPs in the Minister's constituency. If the proposals are so marvellous and will enhance the NHS, why are the general public—let alone the medical profession—far from being persuaded?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman may cite the BMA's views, but that does not mean that his arguments are right.
I turn to the subjects of consultation and ballots and to the other matters that the hon. Gentleman specifically raised.
The chief executive of the National Health Service management board invited initial expressions of interest in the proposals for self-government to be sent to regional health authorities by 31 May. Of the 179 expressions of interest 19 came from West Midlands region, including one from the Manor hospital and one from St. Margaret's hospital in Walsall. Expressions of interest are just that: they do not carry any commitment to proceed with an application. Indeed, it would be unrealistic to expect them to do so until they have fuller information. We are very encouraged by the level of interest that people from all parts of the NHS are showing in our proposals.
We have recently published further guidance on the establishment and operation of self-governing hospitals. A national conference on self-governing hospitals, attended by more than 400 people from the NHS, was held in London on 20 June, and we are following it up with a series of eight regional conferences around the country. The first was held in Birmingham on 22 June. I hope that those who attended, including those from the units in Walsall that had expressed an interest, found it interesting and informative. Sponsors of expressions of interest will want to consider the new information in detail, and to discuss the implications with their staff and district and regional health authorities before deciding whether to proceed with an application.
When people decide to proceed with firm applications they will be asked to complete an application document. Regional health authorities will give firm applications


local publicity and seek the view of those with an interest, particularly the health authorities concerned, staff at the hospital, general practitioners, community health councils and the local community. Each application will need to he subject to careful consultation, given the complicated service, management and financial implications involved. The Secretary of State will consider any responses, together with any comments on them from the regional health authority, alongside the application. The timing will depend on the passage of the necessary legislation.
The hon. Gentleman asked why there should not be a ballot. We are not changing the terms and conditions of staff employed in the Health Service. This is not a closure, nor is a hospital leaving the Health Service; it is a delegation of powers and responsibilities by the Secretary of State to a hospital trust. We do not consider, therefore, that a ballot is either necessary or practical. To what constituency would the ballot apply? As the hon. Gentleman knows, patients—including Manor hospital patients—come from outside his district, and it is not possible or feasible to define the constituency precisely, as can be done with a school or housing estate.
The final decision on applications will rest with the Secretary of State. As explained in the White Paper, he will expect applications for self-government to demonstrate first adequate managerial skills and capacity to run the hospital as a self-governing unit, and second the involvement of senior professional staff in management of the hospital. He will also need to be satisfied that the proposal is consistent with maximum choice for patients and GPs, that the proposed unit would be financially viable, and that self-governing status is not being sought as an alternative to closure.
The process is not a race, and hospitals will become self-governing only when they are ready. It is too early to comment on the prospects for particular hospitals at this stage. An application for self-governing status will take time and commitment to prepare, but it provides the opportunity for hospitals to address the implications of self-government and to build up their capacity to run their own affairs effectively so that their hospital is ready, when self-governing status has been achieved, to apply their new freedoms to the benefit of patients and the local community.

Mr. Winnick: The Minister argues that ballots are not necessary because the hospitals are to remain in the NHS. Why, then, the consultation? Clearly the Government accept that consultation is necessary, although we believe that it would be a cosmetic exercise. What sort of consultation will take place with the local community? If the Minister's argument holds water—that the local community should not really be involved, because the hospital caters for a wider element—why do both the letter and the Minister's speech refer to the local communities being consulted?

Mr. Freeman: I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a distinction between a change in organisation structure in the Health Service—where consultation is necessary and the Secretary of State intends that it should take place—and a fundamental change in NHS structure, involving, for instance, privatisation or breaking up the NHS. That is not intended, but in such circumstances it would clearly be appropriate to consult the electorate democratically. In this reorganisation of the Health Service, management authority is being devolved by the Secretary of State from regions and district to self-governing trusts. They remain within the Health Service. The Secretary of State envisages that those who are most directly involved, including the staff who work in the hospitals and certainly the community health council, will be invited to offer their views. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those views are expressed by community health councils when there is the prospect of a closure. The community health council will be asked to give its views about the devolvement of management responsibility and the Secretary of State will certainly take into account those views.
We expect some applicants to wish to take advantage of the new proposals as early as possible. They will aim to achieve self government by April 1991, the earliest sensible date, subject to the passage of the necessary legislation through this House and another place. Others will be ready later.
I hope that these comments will help Walsall and other authorities in England carefully and thoroughly to review the prospects for the exciting challenge of self government.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.